61546 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU34 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Piperia Yadonii 

(Yadon’s Piperia) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

designate critical habitat for the 

endangered Piperia yadonii (Yadon’s 

piperia) pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

In total, approximately 2,306 acres (ac) 

(930 hectares (ha)) fall within the 

boundaries of the proposed critical 

habitat designation. The proposed 

critical habitat is located in Monterey 

County, California. 

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until December 18, 

2006. We must receive requests for 

public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in the ADDRESSES section 

by December 4, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to the Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office (VFWO), 2493 

Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, 

California 93003. 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments to our Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Office, at the above address. 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

fw8piya@fws.gov. Please see the Public 

Comments Solicited section below for 

file format and other information about 

electronic filing. 

4. You may fax your comments to 

(805) 644–3958. 

5. You may go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in the preparation of this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at our VFWO, at the above 

address (telephone (805) 644–1766). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, VFWO, at 

the above address (telephone (805) 644– 

1766, ext. 319; facsimile (805) 644– 

3958). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule are hereby solicited. 

Comments particularly are sought 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons any habitat should or 

should not be determined to be critical 

habitat as provided by section 4 of the 

Act, including whether the benefit of 

designation will outweigh any threats to 

the species due to designation; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of Piperia 

yadonii habitat, what areas should be 

included in the designations that were 

occupied at the time of listing and 

contain the features that are essential for 

the conservation of the species and why, 

and what areas that were not occupied 

at the listing are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why; 

(3) Our mapping methodology and 

criteria used for determining critical 

habitat as well as any additional 

information on features essential for the 

conservation of the species; 

(4) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat; 

(5) The existence of conservation 

agreements, management plans, or 

strategies that should be considered in 

determining whether to exclude lands 

from the designation. If the Secretary 

determines the benefits of excluding 

lands outweigh the benefits of including 

them, lands will be excluded from the 

final critical habitat designation; 

(6) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities; and 

(7) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES

section). Please submit electronic 

comments to fw8piya@fws.gov in ASCII 

file format and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

Please also include ‘‘Attn: Yadon’s 

piperia’’ in your e-mail subject header 

and your name and return address in 

the body of your message. If you do not 

receive a confirmation from the system 

that we have received your e-mail 

message, contact us directly by calling 

our VFWO at phone number (805) 644– 

1766, ext. 333. Please note that the email address fw8piya@fws.gov will be 

closed out at the termination of the 

public comment period. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their names and/or home 

addresses, etc. but if you wish us to 

consider withholding this information 

you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comments. In 

addition, you must present a rationale 

for withholding this information. This 

rational must demonstrate that 

disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

Unsupported assertions will not meet 

this burden. In the absence of 

exceptional, documentable 

circumstances, this information will be 

released. We will always make 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives of or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Office at the above address. 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act 

Attention to and protection of habitat 

is paramount to successful conservation 

actions. The role that designation of 

critical habitat plays in protecting 

habitat of listed species, however, is 

often misunderstood. As discussed in 

more detail below in the discussion of 

exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, there are significant limitations on 

the regulatory effect of designation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. In brief, 

(1) designation provides additional 

protection to habitat only where there is 

a federal nexus; (2) the protection is 

relevant only when, in the absence of 

designation, destruction or adverse 

modification of the critical habitat 

would in fact take place (in other words, 

other statutory or regulatory protections, 

policies, or other factors relevant to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61547 

agency decision-making would not 

prevent the destruction or adverse 

modification); and (3) designation of 

critical habitat triggers the prohibition 

of destruction or adverse modification 

of that habitat, but it does not require 

specific actions to restore or improve 

habitat. 

Currently, only 475 species, or 36 

percent of the 1,311 listed species in the 

U.S. under the jurisdiction of the 

Service, have designated critical habitat. 

We address the habitat needs of all 

1,311 listed species through 

conservation mechanisms such as 

listing, section 7 consultations, the 

section 4 recovery planning process, the 

section 9 protective prohibitions of 

unauthorized take, section 6 funding to 

the States, the section 10 incidental take 

permit process, and cooperative, 

nonregulatory efforts with private 

landowners. The Service believes that it 

is these measures that may make the 

difference between extinction and 

survival for many species. 

In considering exclusions of areas 

proposed for designation, we evaluated 

the benefits of designation in light of 

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th 

Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot). 

In that case, the Ninth Circuit 

invalidated the Service’s regulation 

defining ‘‘destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat.’’ In 

response, on December 9, 2004, the 

Director issued guidance to be 

considered in making section 7 adverse 

modification determinations. This 

proposed critical habitat designation 

does not use the invalidated regulation 

in our consideration of the benefits of 

including areas in this proposed 

designation. The Service will carefully 

manage future consultations that 

analyze impacts to designated critical 

habitat, particularly those that appear to 

be resulting in an adverse modification 

determination. Such consultations will 

be reviewed by the Regional Office prior 

to finalizing to ensure that an adequate 

analysis has been conducted that is 

informed by the Director’s guidance. 

On the other hand, to the extent that 

designation of critical habitat provides 

protection, that protection can come at 

significant social and economic cost. In 

addition, the mere administrative 

process of designation of critical habitat 

is expensive, time-consuming, and 

controversial. The current statutory 

framework of critical habitat, combined 

with past judicial interpretations of the 

statute, make critical habitat the subject 

of excessive litigation. As a result, 

critical habitat designations are driven 

by litigation and courts rather than 

biology, and made at a time and under 

a timeframe that limits our ability to 

obtain and evaluate the scientific and 

other information required to make the 

designation most meaningful. 

In light of these circumstances, the 

Service believes that additional agency 

discretion would allow our focus to 

return to those actions that provide the 

greatest benefit to the species most in 

need of protection. 

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in 

Designating Critical Habitat 

We have been inundated with 

lawsuits for our failure to designate 

critical habitat, and we face a growing 

number of lawsuits challenging critical 

habitat determinations once they are 

made. These lawsuits have subjected the 

Service to an increasing series of court 

orders and court-approved settlement 

agreements, which complying with now 

consumes nearly the entire listing 

program budget. This leaves the Service 

with little ability to prioritize its 

activities to direct scarce listing 

resources to the listing program actions 

with the most biologically urgent 

species conservation needs. 

The consequence of the critical 

habitat litigation activity is that limited 

listing funds are used to defend active 

lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent 

(NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, 

and to comply with the growing number 

of adverse court orders. As a result, 

listing petition responses, the Service’s 

own proposals to list critically 

imperiled species, and final listing 

determinations on existing proposals are 

all significantly delayed. 

The accelerated schedules of courtordered designations have left the 

Service with limited ability to provide 

for public participation or to ensure a 

defect-free rulemaking process before 

making decisions on listing and critical 

habitat proposals, due to the risks 

associated with noncompliance with 

judicially imposed deadlines. This in 

turn fosters a second round of litigation 

in which those who fear adverse 

impacts from critical habitat 

designations challenge those 

designations. The cycle of litigation 

appears endless, and is very expensive, 

thus diverting resources from 

conservation actions that may provide 

relatively more benefit to imperiled 

species. 

The costs resulting from the 

designation include legal costs, the cost 

of preparation and publication of the 

designation, the analysis of the 

economic effects and the cost of 

requesting and responding to public 

comment, and in some cases the costs 

of compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

These costs, which are not required for 

many other conservation actions, 

directly reduce the funds available for 

direct and tangible conservation actions. 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat in this 

proposed rule and that clarify the 

species description and biology 

provided in the final listing rule. For 

more information on Piperia yadonii, 

refer to the final listing rule published 

in the Federal Register on August 12, 

1998 (63 FR 43100). 

Piperia yadonii is a perennial herb in 

the Orchidaceae (Orchid family), which 

produces one or two basal strap-shaped 

leaves that grow from an underground 

tuber (the storage organ which persists 

when the species is not present 

aboveground). P. yadonii leaves emerge 

in late fall or winter, after the soils are 

saturated by the onset of California’s 

wet season rains. Small tubers produce 

a single leaf, which may resemble a 

grass blade when small (Graff 2006, p. 

12). Larger tubers produce two basal 

leaves, often 4 to 6 inches (10 to 15 

centimeters (cm)) long and about 1 inch 

(2 to 3 cm) wide, at maturity. Emergence 

of the single flowering stalk above 

ground typically begins in April (Doak 

and Graff 2001, p. 2). As the 

inflorescence grows to its full height, 

usually 8 to 20 inches (20 to 50 cm) tall, 

the plant’s basal leaves wither (Morgan 

and Ackerman 1990, p. 209). Flowering 

occurs in the summer, typically from 

June to August. The average number of 

flowers recorded on inflorescences in a 

recent study was 56 (Doak and Graff 

2001, p. 3). Similar to other orchid 

species, only a small proportion of the 

plants that produce leaves in a given 

year will produce an inflorescence. 

Recorded flowering rates for P. yadonii 

plants that have one or more leaves 

range from 0.4 to 22 percent, and vary 

by site and year (Allen 1996, 

unpaginated; Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 

14–15; EcoSystems West Consulting 

Group (Ecosystems West) 2006, pp. 71–

72). Like other orchid species, the 

ability to produce flowering stalks may 

be a function of tuber size (indicative of 

energy reserves), rather than age (Wells 

1981, pp. 291–293; Rasmussen 1995, pp. 

197–200). Consequently, an individual 

that flowers in one year may not be able 

to flower in subsequent years. 

Piperia yadonii requires pollinators to 

produce seeds. Flowers that are not 

visited by pollinators do not produce 

seed. Flowers that are visited by 

pollinators and receive self pollen from 

other flowers on the same plant will 

produce seeds, although they produce 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61548 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

significantly fewer seeds than result 

from cross pollinations between plants. 

This is an expression of inbreeding 

depression in seed set (Doak and Graff 

2001, pp. 12–15). The presence of 

inbreeding depression in later stages, 

such as seed germination and 

establishment, has not been studied in 

P. yadonii. In Monterey pine (Pinus 

radiata) forest habitats, the most 

abundant insects that have been 

collected and observed visiting P. 

yadonii flowers are nocturnal shorttongued moths in the families Pyralidae, 

Geometridae, Noctuidae, and 

Pterophoridae. Six moth species in 

these families had Piperia yadonii 

pollen attached to their bodies, 

confirming that they transport, and can 

potentially transfer, pollen between 

flowers (Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 8–25). 

Nocturnal moths are a commonly 

reported pollinator of other Piperia 

species (Ackerman 1977a, pp. 256–257). 

None of the nocturnal moth visitors are 

thought to be rare. Of the moths carrying 

P. yadonii pollen, two species are 

known to be generalist feeders in the 

larval stage and are found on a variety 

of native plants and agricultural crops. 

Three species have more exclusive 

larval feeding habits, having been 

recorded on native shrubs (e.g., coyote 

brush (Baccharis pilularis); California 

lilac (Ceanothus spp.)) and members of 

the mint family (Lamiaceae) (Doak and 

Graff 2001, pp. 8–25; Graff 2005). A 

bumble bee (Bombus sp.) and one 

mosquito (species unknown) were also 

collected among P. yadonii flowering 

plants and had pollen attached to their 

bodies (Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 8–25; 

Graff 2005). Bumblebees have been 

identified as a diurnal visitor by other 

observers, as well (Yadon 2001, 

unpaginated). In maritime chaparral, 

rates of insect visitation to Piperia 

yadonii populations were so low that no 

pollinator data was collected (Doak and 

Graff 2001, pp. 8–37). Nonnative 

earwigs (Forficula auricularia) have 

been documented to consume 

substantial amounts of pollen from P. 

yadonii flowers in several populations 

found in Monterey pine forest (Doak 

and Graff 2001, p. 9). It is not known if 

this pollen theft results in depressed 

seed set. 

Each successfully maturing seed 

capsule of Piperia yadonii can contain 

hundreds of seeds, so a single plant can 

produce several thousand seeds (Doak 

and Graff 2001, pp. 13–31). Orchid 

seeds are typically minute, with a large 

volume of air compared to the size of 

the embryo. These attributes make the 

seeds particularly buoyant, promoting 

wind dispersal (Healey et al. 1980, pp. 

508, 516; Rasmussen 1995, pp. 7–10). 

The distance seeds routinely travel is 

unknown. In a study of an epiphytic 

(tree growing) orchid, most seeds landed 

within meters of the plant (Ackerman et 

al. 1996, pp. 195–197). However, others 

have noted that orchids may be one of 

the earliest colonizers of new island 

habitats hundreds of kilometers from 

other land masses, suggesting that 

occasional very long distance dispersal 

can occur (Healy et al. 1980, p. 516). 

Data on many terrestrial orchids 

indicates low genetic differentiation 

between populations, suggesting that 

either seeds or pollen are moving 

between populations (Ackerman 1997b). 

In general, orchid seeds lack a 

sufficient internal food source to sustain 

a germinating seedling. Instead, their 

nutritional needs are fulfilled by an 

association with a soil fungus (a 

mycorrhizal association) (Hadley 1982, 

pp. 96–101). Nothing specific has been 

published on the mycorrhizal fungal 

symbionts of Piperia yadonii, nor their 

distribution in the forest and maritime 

chaparral soils where this orchid grows. 

In other temperate North American 

orchid species, the primary fungal 

associates are described as belonging to 

the genus Rhizoctonia or being 

Rhizoctonia-like fungi (Hadley 1982, pp. 

96–99; Hadley and Pegg 1989, pp. 61–

63). The specificity of the association 

between orchids and their mycorrhizal 

fungi is a field of active study (e.g., 

Otero et al. 2002, pp. 1852–1858). No 

broad consensus is apparent on whether 

or not the distributions of temperate 

North American orchids might be 

limited by their dependence on specific 

fungal symbionts. Once the mycorrhizal 

association between the orchid seed and 

its fungal partner is established, the 

orchid tuber continues to develop 

underground. If not established, orchid 

seeds typically fail to germinate or 

seedlings die at an early subterranean 

phase of development (Rasmussen and 

Whigham 1998, pp. 61–63). The length 

of time needed for the subterranean P. 

yadonii tuber to develop, prior to the 

emergence of the first leaf above ground, 

is unknown. In other orchid species, 

this subterranean phase lasts from 1 to 

15 years, with 2 to 4 years the most 

common among those reported (Wells 

1981, pp. 282–283; Rasmussen 1995, pp. 

197–200; Rasmussen and Whigham 

1998, p. 50). 

In addition to its essential 

mycorrhizal fungal associates, Piperia 

yadonii is also affected by other fungal 

infections (tentatively identified as 

Rhizoctonia spp.) that can result in 

reproductive failure. In a study of 

several populations, fewer of the 

diseased plants set seed, compared to 

healthy plants, and diseased plants set 

significantly fewer seed than healthy 

plants (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 14). 

Populations differed in their disease 

incidence. In 2003 at Manzanita County 

Park, of the 100 flowering individuals 

sampled, 94 percent appeared affected 

by disease and consequently set no to 

little fruit (2 to 4 small seed capsules) 

(Graff 2003). Of 90 P. yadonii plants that 

flowered and were examined on the 

Monterey Peninsula, about 9 percent 

exhibited tip wilt and complete 

reproductive failure (EcoSystems West 

2006, p. 57). 

Orchid seeds are not known to have 

any physical dormancy mechanisms 

(Baskin and Baskin 1998, pp. 146–147; 

482–484) and are thought to be 

relatively short-lived, although recent 

research indicates that some species 

may form persistent soil seedbanks 

(Whigham et al. 2006, pp. 24–30). After 

seed production, mature Piperia yadonii 

plants persist as dormant tubers in the 

soil through the late summer and early 

fall. The tuber is the primary form of 

persistence from year to year and it 

likely regenerates annually during the 

growing season, as in related orchids 

(USFWS 1996, p. 7). Leaves emerge 

again above ground after the first 

significant fall rains saturate the soil. No 

evidence of asexual reproduction 

through tuber division has been 

reported or was present in an 

examination of 13 excavated tubers 

(Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 12–17). 

Following emergence of the first leaf 

above ground, an unknown number of 

years are required before the tubers are 

large enough to flower. Annually, a 

proportion of the tubers in any given 

population remain dormant 

underground, producing neither leaves 

nor flowers. This prolonged dormancy 

appears to be fairly common among 

orchids, and in some species, 

individuals remain dormant for 

multiple years before appearing again 

above ground (Hutchings 1987, pp. 715–

716; Kery et al. 2005, pp. 311–319). We 

have no demographic data on the 

proportion of plants that actually reach 

flowering size in their lifetime or the 

average number of years an individual 

may flower in a life time. The lifespan 

of Piperia yadonii has not been studied. 

Few studies of other temperate 

terrestrial orchids have tracked 

populations for a decade or more; those 

that have, note that some individuals 

continued to appear above ground for 

the duration of the 8 to15 years of study 

(Wells 1981, pp. 289–292; Hutchings 

1987, pp. 719–720; USFWS 1996, p. 9). 

Within occurrences, Piperia yadonii 

plants often grow in dense clusters, 

sometimes containing hundreds of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61549 

plants. Up to 70 plants per square meter 

were recorded during a habitat 

characterization in Monterey pine forest 

(EcoSystems West 2006, p. 55). Allen 

(1996, unpaginated) noted that the 

continuous canopy of Monterey pine 

forest enables more continuous plant 

aggregations than maritime chaparral, 

where the chaparral shrubs are 

separated by bare ground. 

The recorded range of Piperia yadonii 

extends from the hills around Prunedale 

and in the Elkhorn Slough watershed, 

south to the Palo Colorado Canyon area 

of the Big Sur coast, in northern 

Monterey County, California. This is the 

same geographic range known at the 

time of listing eight years ago (63 FR 

43100). Surveys conducted within this 

range since that time have provided 

more detailed information on the 

distribution of plants at specific 

locations and about annual variability in 

plant expression above ground. 

Allen (1996, unpaginated) estimated 

that about 70 percent of the total known 

population of Piperia yadonii is found 

near the center of this range in the 

Monterey pine forest of the Monterey 

Peninsula. Recent surveys on the 

Monterey Peninsula identified greater 

concentrations of P. yadonii in forested 

areas of the Monterey Peninsula (Zander 

Associates and WWD Corporation 2004, 

all pp.; EcoSystems West 2005, p. 3), so 

the proportion of plants in that area may 

be greater. While censuses of 

comparable detail to those recently 

conducted on the Monterey Peninsula 

have not been completed in maritime 

chaparral, Allen’s estimate is not likely 

to have overestimated the importance of 

the Monterey Peninsula forests to this 

species. P. yadonii is primarily found in 

two habitat types, central maritime 

chaparral and Monterey pine forest. It 

also grows in the Bishop Pine—Gowen 

cypress (Pinus muricata—Cupressus 

goveniana ssp. goveniana) forest 

community which occurs within the 

Monterey pine forest on the Monterey 

Peninsula and at Point Lobos Ranch. 

Piperia yadonii is present in some 

locations where disturbance has 

occurred previously, such as abandoned 

dirt roads, old trails or trail margins, 

and cut slopes created by past road 

construction (Allen 1996, unpaginated; 

Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 4–5; Graff et 

al. 2003), but that are not affected by 

ongoing foot and vehicle traffic. Graff 

(2006, p. 5) has noted that when 

surrounding forest canopies or 

undergrowth is dense, P. yadonii may 

be primarily found along trails and 

abandoned roads, presumably in 

response to greater available light levels. 

The primary threats to Piperia yadonii 

are loss and fragmentation of habitat 

from commercial, agricultural, 

residential, and intensive recreational 

development (e.g., golf courses, 

manicured ball fields). The historical 

distribution of P. yadonii prior to being 

described in 1990 is unknown, but it 

likely included much of the historical 

extent of the Monterey pine forest where 

the species is presently known to occur. 

Logging of the Monterey pine forest 

began in the late 1700s with the arrival 

of the Spanish in the Monterey Bay area; 

over the last 200 years, the forest 

continued to be logged and converted to 

agriculture and other human uses. 

Recent estimates of the historical and 

current extent of Monterey pine forest 

indicate that 37 to 50 percent of the 

Monterey pine forest once found in the 

Monterey region has been eliminated 

(Huffman and Associates 1994, p. iii; 

Jones and Stokes Associates 1994a, pp. 

8–14; Monterey County Planning and 

Building Inspection Department 

(Monterey County) 2005, p. 3–72). On 

the Monterey Peninsula, the proportion 

of Monterey pine forest eliminated is 

greater. On those marine terraces and 

old dune soils that underlie most of the 

Peninsula, less than 20 percent of the 

historical extent of Monterey pine forest 

is estimated to remain, much of it in 

fragmented and increasingly isolated 

stands (Jones and Stokes Associates 

1994a, pp. 14, 34–37). 

Although no comparable acreage 

estimates have been made for maritime 

chaparral habitats in the northern 

distribution of P. yadonii, these 

shrublands have been reduced and 

fragmented by rural residential 

development and conversion of native 

vegetation to row crops on deeper valley 

soils. The extent of maritime chaparral 

destruction in the Monterey Bay area 

was recognized and discussed 30 years 

ago (Griffin 1978, p. 78). To the west of 

Prunedale, most development is 

apparent in the valleys, leaving the 

vegetation on the shallow soils of 

ridgelines relatively intact, but isolated 

(aerial photography; Van Dyke et al. 

2001, pp. 221, 226–227). North and east 

of Prunedale, greater amounts of 

residential development appear to have 

occurred on the ridgetops. 

Consequently, maritime chaparral 

patches exist there as smaller fragments 

than they do to the west (mapping by 

Van Dyke and Holl 2003). 

Maritime chaparral in the ElkhornPrunedale region of Monterey County is 

also changing as a result of plant 

succession and an absence of fire. A 

recent study of maritime chaparral sites 

first sampled 30 years ago found that 

changes in community composition, 

seedling abundance, and canopy cover 

are occurring after a 70-year absence of 

fire. Shrub diversity appears to be 

declining and canopy cover is 

increasing as coast live oak (Quercus 

agrifolia) or large canopied manzanitas 

become dominant (Van Dyke et al. 2001, 

pp. 225–227). This conversion is likely 

to be slower in the shallow ridgetop 

soils where Piperia yadonii occurs than 

it is on slopes and more mesic (moist) 

sites, but coast live oak are present now 

even on these ridgelines (Van Dyke et al. 

2001, pp. 226–227). Continued 

fragmentation and isolation of ridgetop 

maritime chaparral habitats in a matrix 

of residential development will reduce 

the likelihood that fire can be used as 

a management tool in these habitats in 

the future. 

Other threats that have been 

identified include invasive nonnative 

plant species and factors that reduce 

reproduction, such as herbivory, 

disease, and mowing for fuel reduction 

purposes. The most common invasive 

plant species found in Piperia yadonii 

habitat throughout its range are jubata or 

pampass grass (Cortaderia jubata) and 

French broom (Genista monspessulana). 

These are large plants that can form 

high dense canopies, reducing light and 

space. Jubata grass invades openings in 

maritime chaparral in the ElkhornPrunedale region and the Huckleberry 

Hill Reserve on the Monterey Peninsula. 

French broom is more common in 

Monterey pine forest habitats and was 

dense in Piperia yadonii occurrences at 

the Naval Postgraduate School and 

Point Lobos Ranch, when abatement 

was initiated (Graff 2006, appendices 

IV, VI; Greening Associates 1999, p. 4). 

Other invasive nonnative plants 

documented from occurrences of P. 

yadonii include rattlesnake grass (Briza 

maxima) and iceplant (Carpobrotus 

edulis) (Allen 1996; Doak and Graff 

2001, pp. 4–5). Approximately 20 

invasive nonnative plant species have 

been identified spreading in the 

Monterey pine forests in Monterey 

County (Rogers 2002, pp. 58–59). 

Herbivory of Piperia yadonii leaves 

and flowering stalks by deer and rabbits 

has been frequently reported (Allen 

1996, unpaginated, Yadon 1997; Doak 

and Graff 2001, pp. 10–17). Deer are 

abundant on the Monterey Peninsula 

and reports from a decade ago estimated 

that herbivory removed about 85 

percent of the flowering stalks of 

uncaged plants (Allen 1996, 

unpaginated). In a study of reproduction 

in seven occurrences, herbivory and 

disease combined caused reproductive 

failure in about 73 percent of monitored 

plants (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 17). 

More recent herbivory estimates from 

both maritime chaparral and Monterey 

pine forest range from 0 percent to 78 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61550 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

percent, with the highest herbivory rates 

(73 percent in 2003, 78 percent in 2005) 

in the Monterey pine forest (Graff 2006, 

p. 11, Appendix VI). EcoSystems West 

(2006, pp. 54–58) reported that about 26 

percent of vegetative P. yadonii and 

about 62 to 70 percent of flowering 

stalks were browsed in Monterey pine 

forest on the Monterey Peninsula. 

Mowing for fuel reduction purposes 

has repeatedly removed the flowering 

stalks of some Piperia yadonii 

occurrences in the Monterey Peninsula 

region (Yadon 1997, 2000, unpaginated; 

Environmental Science Associates 2004, 

pp. 3–14, 3–15, 3–16). Expanded fuel 

breaks are planned for the maritime 

chaparral in which one occurrence is 

found at Manzanita Park. 

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). At the 

time of listing, we found the designation 

of critical habitat for P. yadonii to be not 

prudent because: (1) There would be no 

additional benefit beyond listing from 

doing so, and (2) it would increase the 

risk of overcollection. In August 2004, 

we published a recovery plan for P. 

yadonii and four other plant taxa from 

Monterey County, California (USFWS 

2004). 

On August 13, 2004, our decision not 

to designate critical habitat for Piperia 

yadonii was challenged in Center for 

Biological Diversity and the California 

Native Plant Society v. Norton (Case No. 

C 04–3240 (N.D.Cal.). On December 21, 

2004, the Court issued a settlement 

agreement, in which the Service agreed 

to submit for publication a proposal to 

withdraw the existing ‘‘not prudent’’

determination together with a new 

proposed critical habitat determination 

for P. yadonii by October 5, 2006. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.12) require that, to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable, we 

designate critical habitat at the time a 

species is listed as endangered or 

threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of 

critical habitat is not prudent when one 

or both of the following situations exist: 

(1) The species is threatened by taking 

or other activity and the identification 

of critical habitat can be expected to 

increase the degree of threat to the 

species or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. In our August 12, 1998 

final rule (63 FR 43100), we determined 

that designation of critical habitat for P. 

yadonii was not prudent based on both 

reasons. Specifically, we stated that P. 

yadonii occurs predominantly on 

private lands where Federal 

involvement is unlikely. Furthermore, 

we stated that a majority of P. yadonii 

individuals are on lands of a single 

private landowner, who commissioned 

the studies that documented the species’

range and population status; because 

this landowner is well aware of the 

presence and location of the species on 

its property, there would be no 

additional benefit to the species from 

providing the same location information 

to the landowner. 

In addition, we stated that publication 

of precise maps and descriptions of 

critical habitat would make these plants 

more vulnerable to incidents of 

vandalism which could contribute to 

the decline of the species and therefore 

such designation would provide little 

conservation benefit over that provided 

by listing. However, in the past few 

years, several of our determinations that 

the designation of critical habitat would 

not be prudent have been overturned by 

court decisions. For example, in 

Conservation Council for Hawaii v. 

Babbitt, the United States District Court 

for the District of Hawaii ruled that the 

Service could not rely on the ‘‘increased 

threat’’ rationale for a ‘‘not prudent’’

determination without specific evidence 

of the threat to the species at issue (2 F. 

Supp. 2d 1280 [D. Hawaii 1998]). 

Additionally, in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that 

the Service must balance, in order to 

invoke the ‘‘increased threat rationale,’’

the threat against the benefit to the 

species of designating critical habitat 

(113 F. 3d 1121, 1125 [9th Cir. 1997]). 

We have reconsidered our evaluation 

of the threats posed by vandalism and 

overcollection in the prudency 

determination. Since the time of listing 

in 1998, we have gathered information 

indicating that populations of Piperia 

yadonii continue to be directly and 

indirectly affected by destruction and 

alteration of habitat due to residential 

development. However, we have no 

credible information that this species 

has been threatened from vandalism and 

overcollection, nor can we say that 

critical habitat would not be a benefit to 

the species. Accordingly, we withdraw 

our previous determination that the 

designation of critical habitat is not 

prudent for P. yadonii, and determine 

that the designation of critical habitat is 

prudent for P. yadonii. At this time, we 

have sufficient information necessary to 

identify specific areas that contain 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and are, therefore, proposing 

critical habitat (see ‘‘Methods’’ sections 

below for a discussion of information 

used in our reevaluation). 

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 when measures 

provided pursuant to the Act are no 

longer necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 requires consultation 

on Federal actions that ‘‘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 is a 

purely protective measure and does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 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 

(i.e., areas on which are found the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61551 

primary constituent elements, as 

defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Habitat occupied at the time of listing 

may be included in critical habitat only 

if the essential features thereon may 

require special management or 

protection. Thus, we do not include 

areas where existing management is 

sufficient to conserve the species. (As 

discussed below, such areas may also be 

excluded from critical habitat pursuant 

to section 4(b)(2).) Areas outside the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

at the time of listing may only be 

included in critical habitat if they are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Accordingly, when the best 

available scientific data do not 

demonstrate that the conservation needs 

of the species require additional areas, 

we will not designate critical habitat in 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing. An area currently occupied by 

the species but was not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing will 

likely, but not always, be essential to the 

conservation of the species and, 

therefore, typically included in the 

critical habitat designation. 

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 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, and 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. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 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, 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 

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 peerreviewed articles; reports and survey 

forms prepared for Federal, state, 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 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 not 

proposing to designate as critical habitat 

any areas outside the geographical area 

presently occupied by the species. 

The range of Piperia yadoni extends 

from the Los Lomos area near the Santa 

Cruz County border in the north to 

approximately 15 miles (25 kilometers) 

south of the Monterey Penninsula near 

Palo Colorado Canyon (Morgan and 

Ackerman 1990, 208–210; Allen 1996, 

unpaginated). This range has been 

divided into the following 5 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. 

yadoni populations and lands proposed 

for 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 and 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 and 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and habitats that are protected 

from disturbance or are representative of 

the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

The specific PCEs required for Piperia 

yadonii are derived from the biological 

needs of P. yadonii as described in the 

Background section of this proposal 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 postgermination development. Maritime 

chaparral and pine forest communities 

in which P. yadonii and its fungal 

symbionts occur, exhibit considerable 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61552 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 oldage 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), to 

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 cm) 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 lowgrowing 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 

(Arctostaphylos 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 manzanitas (A. glandulosa) 

and manzanita hybrids are 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) 

and 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, and have 

appropriate 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 of critical habitat, but assume 

that mycorrhizal associates will be 

represented in areas which 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, soils 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61553 

unable to compete with the denser 

understory vegetation found on more 

nutrient-rich soils. P. yadonii presence 

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). P. 

yadonii exists within several plant 

communities which 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 

and biological features (Primary 

Constituent Elements; PCEs) essential to 

the conservation of Piperia yadonii. All 

areas proposed as critical habitat for P. 

yadonii are occupied, within the 

species’ historic 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. 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. 

b. Maritime chaparral ridges with 

dwarfed shrub (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, shorttongued moths in the families Pyralidae, 

Geometridae, Noctuidae, and 

Pterophoridae. 

This proposed designation is designed 

for the conservation of those areas 

containing PCEs necessary to support 

the life history functions that were the 

basis for the proposal. Because not all 

life history functions require all the 

PCEs, not all proposed critical habitat 

will contain all the PCEs. 

Units are designated based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

one or more of the species’s life history 

functions. Some units contain all PCEs 

and support multiple life processes, 

while some units contain only a portion 

of the PCEs necessary to support the 

species’ particular use of that habitat. 

Where a subset of the PCEs is present at 

the time of designation, this rule 

protects those PCEs and thus the 

conservation function of the habitat. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

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 peerreviewed 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 proposing to designate 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 proposing to designate critical 

habitat on lands within the geographic 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and continue to be occupied 

to date. All proposed units contain 

habitat with features essential to the 

conservation of Piperia yadonii. We are 

not proposing any units that are 

unoccupied. 

We used a multi-step process to 

identify and delineate proposed 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 proposed 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61554 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 this 

proposed designation that had not been 

identified during the flowering season 

as Piperia 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 longterm 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 

planning 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 did not further consider 

these areas in the proposal. Although 

we have not included these areas within 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation, because they are, occupied 

they may still receive indirect 

protection under 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, need special management, and 

would 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 a continuous 

ridgeline. 

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, p. 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 P. 

yadonii is found to preserve the genetic 

variation that may result from 

adaptation to local environmental 

conditions, 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 which contain those 

biological and physical features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species 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 proposed 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 

proposed critical habitat. 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 proposed critical 

habitat: two of these are in the ElkhornPrunedale area, 10 are on the Monterey 

Peninsula or interior of the Monterey 

Peninsula, and one is in the Point Lobos 

Ranch area. These 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 they are extant or accurately 

identified. 

Mapping 

To map the proposed 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 ridge tops 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61555 

community data, is a more accurate 

predictor of the species distribution. 

Therefore, as a first step, we tailored 

proposed unit boundaries using 

geomorphologic features, vegetation 

data, and soil series data. 

In areas dominated by maritime 

chaparral, such as the ElkhornPrunedale 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 

Yadon’s piperia 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 

8 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 proposed critical 

habitat boundaries, we made every 

effort to avoid including within the 

boundaries of the maps contained 

within this proposed 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 proposed rule have been 

excluded by text in the proposed rule 

and are not proposed for 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. 

We are proposing to designate critical 

habitat in areas that we have determined 

were occupied at the time of listing, and 

that contain sufficient primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) to support 

life history functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. Lands are 

proposed for designation based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

the life processes of the species. Some 

lands contain all PCEs and support 

multiple life processes. Some lands 

contain only a portion of the PCEs 

necessary to support the particular use 

of that habitat. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

be occupied at the time of listing and to 

contain the primary constituent 

elements may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. 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. 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. These threats may require 

special management and are addressed 

under the critical habitat unit 

descriptions below. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing 8 units as critical 

habitat for Piperia yadonii. The critical 

habitat areas described below constitute 

our best assessment at this time of areas 

determined to be occupied at the time 

of listing, that contain the primary 

constituent elements, and that may 

require special management. Table 1, 

below, identifies the approximate area 

exempt from proposed critical habitat 

for P. yadonii pursuant to section 4(a)(3) 

of the Act. Exemptions are discussed 

later in this proposed rule under the 

section Application of Section 4(a)(3) 

and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61556 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—APPROXIMATE AREA EXEMPT FROM PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR PIPERIA YADONII PURSUANT TO

SECTION 4(A)(3) OF THE ACT

Location (unit) 

Definitional 

area 

(acres/ 

hectares) 

Proposed exemption area 

(acres/ 

hectares) 

Presidio of Monterey, Monterey Peninsula ........................................................................................................... 121 ac (49 ha) 121 ac (49 ha) 

The approximate area encompassed 

within each proposed critical habitat 

unit is shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS PROPOSED FOR PIPERIA YADONII

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries in ac (ha)] 

Critical habitat unit and subunit State Local agency 

Private 

Total Conservationoriented 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 ........................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 498 (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) 

subunit 3b ............................................................................ 12 (5) 0 0 0 12 (5) 

subunit 3c ............................................................................. 21 (8) 0 0 0 21 (8) 

Unit 4: Aguajito .................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 157 (64) 

subunit 4a ............................................................................ 0 0 0 77 (31) 77 (31) 

subunit 4b ............................................................................ 0 0 0 80 (32) 80 (32) 

Unit 5: Old Capitol ............................................................... 0 0 0 16 (6) 16 (6) 

Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula ................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1059 (428) 

subunit 6a ............................................................................ 0 0 17 (7) 888 (359) 905 (366) 

subunit 6b ............................................................................ 0 0 0 9 (4) 9 (4) 

subunit 6c ............................................................................. 0 0 23 (9) 47 (19) 70 (28) 

subunit 6d ............................................................................ 0 0 12 (5) 0 12 (5) 

subunit 6e ............................................................................ 0 19 (7) 29 (12) 15 (6) 63 (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) 537 (217) 1305 (527) 2306 (931) 

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; therefore, we 

discuss them as a unit, except to 

differentiate land ownership. Unit 1 was 

known to be 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. 

Threats that may require special 

management in this unit are: the growth 

and spread of invasive plant species 

(such as jubata grass); erosion from old 

roadbeds or past earth-moving activities; 

removal of the P. yadonii occurrence or 

its associated natural community to 

accommodate road construction, 

agricultural, or other facilities 

(reservoirs, housing sites); and 

herbivory. Herbivory of flowering stalks 

was 36 percent in 1999, although 

predators (mountain lion (Puma 

concolor)) of herbivores were recently 

sighted on these lands. Jubata grass is 

present on surrounding properties and 

continued colonization of these lands by 

this species is likely. 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61557 

potential pollinators, such as moths or 

bees, are maintained or enhanced. 

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; therefore, we 

discuss these characteristics for the 

whole unit. Unit 2 was known to be 

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. 

This unit encompasses a cluster of three 

ridgelines primarily oriented east-west 

that rise in elevation from west to east, 

and which support P. yadonii and 

which may be close enough for genetic 

exchange via wind-dispersed seed. In 

conjunction with the Blohm Ranch unit, 

this unit will encompass the majority of 

the P. 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 they 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 recorded P. 

yadonii. Threats that may require 

special management in this unit are: 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. Special management may 

also be needed to ensure the abundance 

of potential pollinators, such as moths 

or bees, are maintained or enhanced, to 

ensure the production of sufficient 

viable seed. 

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 proposed 

designation. A portion of the park 

within the proposed 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 needs. Unit 3 was 

known to be occupied at the time of 

listing (Service 1998) and is currently 

occupied (Childs 2004). The 

easternmost Piperia yadonii occurrences 

in unit 3 (subunit 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 lowgrowing Hooker’s manzanita. 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. Lands in these units have 

the features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Threats that 

may require special management in this 

unit are 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. 

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 the unit, 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61558 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Unit 4: Aguajito 

Unit 4 consists of 157 ac (64 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 known to be 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 support 

germination, growth, and reproduction. 

Unit 4 represents one of only two units 

proposed 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 would help avoid range 

collapse. Threats that may require 

special management in this unit are 

fragmentation of habitat from 

development and the colonization and 

spread of invasive plant species. 

Subunit 4a: This subunit consists of 

77 ac (31 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 

80 ac (32 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 known to be 

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 proposed between the Monterey 

Peninsula (Unit 6) and Aguajito (Unit 4) 

to the east, and therefore provides 

connectivity between these other two 

units. Threats that may require special 

management in this unit are 

fragmentation or loss of habitat from 

development, habitat degradation by 

motorized vehicles and encampments, 

debris dumping, and competition from 

nonnative invasive plants. 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 1,058 ac (428 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 known 

to be 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. Threats that may 

require special management in this unit 

are: 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. 

Subunit 6a: This subunit consists of 

904 ac (366 ha) of private lands owned 

by the Pebble Beach Company and other 

private owners, including 80 ac (33 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 proposed 

designation, as described later in this 

rule. 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 9 

ac (4 ha) of private lands. It is identified 

in the Pebble Beach Company’s most 

recent development proposal as the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61559 

Bristol Curve Conservation Area 

(Monterey County 2005 Fig. ES–2). 

Vegetation in this subunit is Monterey 

pine forest with an herbaceous 

understory. 

Subunit 6c: This subunit consists of 

70 ac (28 ha) of private lands, of which 

about 23 acres (9 ha) are owned by the 

Del Monte Forest Foundation (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 that are 

proposed for development are not 

included in this subunit. The vegetation 

in this subunit is primarily Monterey 

pine forest. This subunit supports 

several thousand Piperia yadonii plants. 

Along with subunit 6b and 6d, it 

encompasses lands in the westernmost 

region of the Monterey Peninsula. 

Subunit 6d: This subunit consists of 

13 ac (5 ha) of private lands owned by 

the Del Monte Forest Foundation. 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, which typically equates to 

several hundred vegetative plants. 

Subunit 6e: This subunit consists of 

44 ac (18 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 Del Monte 

Forest Foundation. 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). 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 proposing 

on the Peninsula. It supports several 

hundred plants of Piperia yadonii. 

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 known to be 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, JuniperoSur 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 cypressBishop 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. Threats that may require 

special management in this unit are: 

The growth and spread of invasive plant 

species, such as French broom; loss of 

habitat from residential development; 

and erosion. Access by park visitors 

may need to be managed to avoid 

trailing in Monterey pine forest 

populations and use of herbicides 

should be controlled to avoid or 

minimize effects to P. yadonii. 

Unit 8: Palo Colorado 

Unit 8 consists of 73 ac (29 ha) of 

private land on the Big Sur coast. Unit 

8 was known to be 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 

(1000 to 1400 feet (300 to 430 m)) 

occurrence in the species’ range. Threats 

that may require special management in 

this unit are 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. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. In our 

regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define 

destruction or adverse modification as 

‘‘a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat for both the survival and 

recovery of a listed species. Such 

alterations include, but are not limited 

to, alterations adversely modifying any 

of those physical or biological features 

that were the basis for determining the 

habitat to be critical.’’ However, recent 

decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Court of Appeals have invalidated this 

definition (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)). 

Pursuant to current national policy and 

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 the intended 

conservation role for the species. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a proposed 

species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. This is a procedural 

requirement only. However, once a 

proposed species becomes listed, or 

proposed critical habitat is designated 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61560 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed species 

and critical habitat and avoid potential 

delays in implementing a proposed 

action as a result 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 proposed species 

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 proposed species 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 may affect, but are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or its 

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 will require section 7 

consultation under the Act. Activities 

on State, tribal, local or private lands 

requiring a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (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 Jeopardy and 

Adverse Modification Standards for 

Actions Involving Effects to Piperia 

Yadonii and Its Critical Habitat 

Jeopardy Standard 

The Service has applied an analytical 

framework for Piperia yadonii jeopardy 

analyses that relies heavily on the 

importance of core area populations to 

the survival and recovery of P. yadonii. 

The section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused 

not only on these populations but also 

on the habitat conditions necessary to 

support them. 

The jeopardy analysis usually 

expresses the survival and recovery 

needs of Piperia yadonii in a qualitative 

fashion without making distinctions 

between what is necessary for survival 

and what is necessary for recovery. 

Generally, if a proposed Federal action 

is incompatible with the viability of the 

affected core area population(s), 

inclusive of associated habitat 

conditions, a jeopardy finding is 

considered to be warranted, because of 

the relationship of each core area 

population to the survival and recovery 

of the species as a whole. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

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 the 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Generally, the conservation role 

of P. 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 may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of 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. Activities that, 

when carried out, funded, or authorized 

by a Federal agency, may affect critical 

habitat and therefore result in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61561 

consultation for P. 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 

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-ofseason 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 which 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 which 

influence soil saturation during the 

growing season. 

(6) Actions that would increase the 

abundance of herbivores of Piperia 

yadonii leaves and flowers (such as deer 

and rabbits) 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 proposed as critical 

habitat, as well as that portion of one 

which has been exempted under 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. In 

some cases, the level of detail regarding 

the precise location of plants within the 

units was not documented until after 

the listing. All units are occupied by P. 

yadonii. Because all proposed 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 proposed critical habitat designation 

for Piperia yadonii were analyzed for 

exemption under the authority of 4(a)(3) 

of the Act. 

The Presidio of Monterey (POM) has 

an INRMP and Endangered Species 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61562 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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, we are not including 

approximately 121 acres (49 ha) of 

habitat for P. yadonii within the POM in 

this proposed critical habitat 

designation pursuant to section 4(a)(3) 

of the Act. 

Section 4(b)(2) 

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 Secretary is afforded broad 

discretion and the Congressional record 

is clear that in making a determination 

under the section the Secretary has 

discretion as to which factors and how 

much weight will be given to any factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2), 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. The 

Service is conducting an economic 

analysis of the impacts of the proposed 

critical habitat designation and related 

factors, which will be available for 

public review and comment. Based on 

public comment on that document, the 

proposed designation itself, and the 

information in the final economic 

analysis, areas may be excluded from 

critical habitat by the Secretary under 

the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. This is provided for in the Act, and 

in our implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.19. 

Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands 

Most federally listed species in the 

United States will not recover without 

the cooperation of non-Federal 

landowners. More than 60% of the 

United States is privately owned 

(National Wilderness Institute 1995) and 

at least 80% of endangered or 

threatened species occur either partially 

or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 

2002). Stein et al. (1995) found that only 

about 12% of listed species were found 

almost exclusively on Federal lands 

(90–100% of their known occurrences 

restricted to Federal lands) and that 

50% 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, 

Crouse et al. 2002, James 2002). 

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 Four Cs 

philosophy—conservation through 

communication, consultation, and 

cooperation. This philosophy is evident 

in Service programs such as HCPs, Safe 

Harbors, CCAs, CCAAs, and 

conservation challenge cost-share. Many 

private landowners, however, are wary 

of the possible consequences of 

encouraging endangered species on 

their property, and there is mounting 

evidence that some regulatory actions 

by the Federal Government, while wellintentioned and required by law, can 

under certain circumstances have 

unintended negative consequences for 

the conservation of species on private 

lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, Bean 2002, 

Conner and Mathews 2002, James 2002, 

Koch 2002, Brook et al. 2003). 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, Brook et al. 2003). 

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 of the Act, can 

sometimes be counterproductive to its 

intended purpose on non-Federal lands. 

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, Bean 2002, Brook et 

al. 2003). The magnitude of this 

negative outcome is greatly amplified in 

situations where active management 

measures (e.g., reintroduction, fire 

management, control of invasive 

species) are necessary for species 

conservation (Bean 2002). 

The Department of the Interior’s 

‘‘4Cs’’ philosophy—conservation 

through communication, consultation, 

and cooperation—is the foundation for 

developing the tools of conservation. 

These tools include conservation grants, 

funding for Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program, the Coastal Program, 

and cooperative-conservation challenge 

cost-share grants. Our Private 

Stewardship Grant program and 

Landowner Incentive Program provide 

assistance to private landowners in their 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61563 

voluntary efforts to protect threatened, 

imperiled, and endangered species, 

including the development and 

implementation of HCPs. 

Conservation agreements with nonFederal landowners (e.g., Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs), contractual 

conservation agreements, easements, 

and stakeholder-negotiated State 

regulations) enhance species 

conservation by extending species 

protections beyond those available 

through section 7 consultations. In the 

past decade we have encouraged nonFederal 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 coercive methods (61 FR 63854; 

December 2, 1996). 

There are currently no conservation 

plans for lands supporting Piperia 

yadonii that we have determined 

contain the features essential for its 

conservation. 

The Pebble Beach Company has 

submitted a draft conservation strategy 

for some of its lands that are within P. 

yadonii proposed critical habitat units 

on the Monterey Peninsula (Unit 6), and 

interior to the Monterey Peninsula (Unit 

4 and Unit 5). We are continuing to 

work with the Pebble Beach Company to 

refine that strategy. We also invite 

discussion with other landowners 

within proposed Critical Habitat that 

have an interest in developing 

conservation strategies that we would 

evaluate to determine if they provide a 

greater benefit to Yadon’s piperia than 

could be achieved through the final 

designation of critical habitat See more 

on the section 4(b)(2) balancing process, 

described below. 

We anticipate no impact to national 

security, Tribal lands, or habitat 

conservation plans from this proposed 

critical habitat designation. The 

information provided in the section 

below provides the framework for our 

consideration of Exclusions under 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

General Principles of Section 7 

Consultation Used in the 4(b)(2) 

Balancing Process 

The most direct, and potentially 

largest, regulatory benefit of critical 

habitat is that federally authorized, 

funded, or carried out activities require 

consultation pursuant to section 7 of the 

Act to ensure that they are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. There are two limitations to this 

regulatory effect. First, it only applies 

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 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 the listed species or its critical 

habitat. However, if the Service 

determines through informal 

consultation that adverse impacts are 

likely to occur, then formal consultation 

would be initiated. Formal consultation 

concludes with a biological opinion 

issued by the Service on whether the 

proposed Federal action is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat, 

with separate analyses being made 

under both the jeopardy and the adverse 

modification standards. For critical 

habitat, a biological opinion that 

concludes in a determination of no 

destruction or adverse modification may 

contain discretionary conservation 

recommendations to minimize adverse 

effects to primary constituent elements, 

but it would not contain any mandatory 

reasonable and prudent measures or 

terms and conditions. Mandatory 

measures and terms and conditions to 

implement such measures are only 

specified when the proposed action 

would result in the incidental take of a 

listed animal species. Reasonable and 

prudent alternatives to the proposed 

Federal action would only be suggested 

when the biological opinion results in a 

jeopardy or adverse modification 

conclusion. 

We also note that for 30 years prior to 

the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in 

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th 

Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot), 

the Service conflated the jeopardy 

standard with the standard for 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat when evaluating federal 

actions that affect currently 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, under the 

Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat 

designations may provide greater 

benefits to the recovery of a species. 

However, we believe the conservation 

achieved through implementing habitat 

conservation plans (HCPs) 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, 

any HCP or management plan which 

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. 

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. 

Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat 

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 

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, more indirect benefit: that 

designation of critical habitat would 

inform State agencies and local 

governments about areas that could be 

conserved under State laws or local 

ordinances. 

Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs 

or Other Approved Management Plans 

From Critical Habitat 

The benefits of excluding lands with 

HCPs or other approved management 

plans from critical habitat designation 

include relieving landowners, 

communities, and counties of any 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61564 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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. 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. Although 

plants are not subject to the prohibition 

on take in Section 9 of the Act, the 

Service encourages applicants to 

include them as covered species in 

HCPs by incorporating measures to 

protect them and their habitat under the 

plans. If as a result of the federal nexus 

created by such inclusion, plants are 

subjected to increased numbers of 

consultations under Section 7 due to 

designation of critical habitat, 

applicants will likely be discouraged 

from incorporating conservation 

measures for plants in their HCPs. 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. 

The benefits of excluding lands 

within approved management plans 

from critical habitat designation include 

relieving landowners, communities, and 

counties of any additional regulatory 

burden that might be imposed by 

critical habitat. Many conservation 

plans provide conservation benefits to 

unlisted sensitive species. Imposing an 

additional regulatory review as a result 

of the designation of critical habitat may 

undermine conservation efforts and 

partnerships in many areas. 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. 

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. 

As noted above, there are currently no 

approved HCPs or management plans in 

place that provide conservation benefits 

to P. yadonii. However, The Pebble 

Beach Company has submitted a draft 

conservation strategy for some of its 

lands that are within P. yadonii 

proposed critical habitat units on the 

Monterey Peninsula (Unit 6), and 

interior to the Monterey Peninsula (Unit 

4 and Unit 5), and we are continuing to 

work with the Pebble Beach Company to 

refine that strategy. If the strategy is 

finalized and assured of implementation 

prior to final critical habitat designation, 

we will evaluate it to determine whether 

it provides a greater benefit to Yadon’s 

piperia than could be achieved through 

the final designation of critical habitat. 

Economic Analysis 

An analysis of the economic impacts 

of proposing critical habitat for Piperia 

yadonii is being prepared. We will 

announce the availability of the draft 

economic analysis as soon as it is 

completed, at which time we will seek 

public review and comment. At that 

time, copies of the draft economic 

analysis will be available for 

downloading from the Internet at http:// 

www.fws.gov/ventura/, or by contacting 

the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 

directly (see ADDRESSES section). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our critical habitat designation is based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We will 

send these peer reviewers copies of this 

proposed rule immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

designation of critical habitat. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests for public hearings 

must be made in writing at least 15 days 

prior to the close of the public comment 

period. We will schedule public 

hearings on this proposal, if any are 

requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings in 

the Federal Register and local 

newspapers at least 15 days prior to the 

first hearing. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations and notices 

that are easy to understand. We invite 

your comments on how to make this 

proposed rule easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: (1) Are the requirements 

in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) 

Does the proposed rule contain 

technical jargon that interferes with the 

clarity? (3) Does the format of the 

proposed rule (grouping and order of 

the sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, and so forth) aid or 

reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description 

of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

rule? (5) What else could we do to make 

this proposed rule easier to understand? 

Send a copy of any comments on how 

we could make this proposed rule easier 

to understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail 

your comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues, but it is not anticipated to 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or affect the 

economy in a material way. Due to the 

tight timeline for publication in the 

Federal Register, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has not 

formally reviewed this rule. We are 

preparing a draft economic analysis of 

this proposed action, which will be 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61565 

available for public comment, to 

determine the economic consequences 

of designating the specific area as 

critical habitat. This economic analysis 

also will be used to determine 

compliance with Executive Order 

12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, and Executive Order 

12630. 

Within these areas, the types of 

Federal actions or authorized activities 

that we have identified as potential 

concerns are listed above in the section 

on Section 7 Consultation. The 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis will be announced in the 

Federal Register and in local 

newspapers, so that it is available for 

public review and comments. The draft 

economic analysis can be obtained from 

the Internet Web site at http:// 

www.fws.gov/ventura/ or by contacting 

the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 

directly (see ADDRESSES section). 

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. 

At this time, the Service lacks the 

available economic information 

necessary to provide an adequate factual 

basis for the required RFA finding. 

Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred 

until completion of the draft economic 

analysis prepared pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 12866. This 

draft economic analysis will provide the 

required factual basis for the RFA 

finding. Upon completion of the draft 

economic analysis, the Service will 

publish a notice of availability of the 

draft economic analysis of the proposed 

designation and reopen the public 

comment period for the proposed 

designation for an additional 60 days. 

The Service will include with the notice 

of availability, as appropriate, an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis or a 

certification that the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

accompanied by the factual basis for 

that determination. The Service has 

concluded that deferring the RFA 

finding until completion of the draft 

economic analysis is necessary to meet 

the purposes and requirements of the 

RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this 

manner will ensure that the Service 

makes a sufficiently informed 

determination based on adequate 

economic information and provides the 

necessary opportunity for public 

comment. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211) on 

regulations that significantly affect 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. This 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for Piperia yadonii is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, 

tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal 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 7 

percent (209 ac/84 ha) of the total 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

Piperia yadonii is owned by small 

government entities; these entities 

include the City of Pacific Grove and 

Monterey County. Furthermore, a large 

portion of these lands are designated as 

parks or open space and managed at 

least in part for conservation of natural 

resources. As such, Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. We will, 

however, further evaluate this issue as 

we conduct our economic analysis and 

revise this assessment if appropriate. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have significant 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61566 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Federalism effects. A Federalism 

assessment is not required. In keeping 

with DOI policy, we requested 

information from, and coordinated 

development of, this proposed critical 

habitat designation with appropriate 

State resource agencies in California. 

The designation of critical habitat in 

areas currently occupied by Piperia 

yadonii imposes no additional 

restrictions to those currently in place 

and, therefore, has little incremental 

impact on State and local governments 

and their activities. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments in that the areas 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 have 

proposed designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act. This proposed 

rule uses standard property descriptions 

and identifies the primary constituent 

elements within the designated areas to 

assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of 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 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

assertion was upheld in the courts of the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F. 3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 

1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). 

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 

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 Piperia yadonii. 

Therefore, critical habitat for Piperia 

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. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. In § 17.12(h), revise the entry for 

‘‘Piperia yadonii’’ under ‘‘FLOWERING 

PLANTS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Scientific name Common name 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Piperia yadonii ......... Yadon’s piperia ....... U.S.A. (CA) ............. Orchidaceae (Orchid).E 1998 17.96(a) NA 

* * * * * * * 

3. In § 17.96(a), add an entry for 

Piperia yadonii under family 

Orchidaceae’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 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) Pine forest (primarily Monterey 

pine) with an open canopy and 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; and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61567 

(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, shorttongued moths in the families Pyralidae, 

Geometridae, Noctuidae, and 

Pterophoridae. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

man-made structures existing on the 

effective date of this rule and not 

containing one or more of the primary 

constituent elements. Such structures 

include buildings, aqueducts, airports, 

and roads, and the land on which they 

are located. 

(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 11, 

North American Datum (NAD) 1983. 

(5) Note: (Index map) of critical 

habitat for Piperia yadonii (Map 1) 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61568 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2EP18OC06.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61569 

(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. 

(7) Note: Map of Units 1, 2, and 3 

(Map 2) follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61570 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2EP18OC06.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61571 

(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, 

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. 

(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. 

(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; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61572 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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: Map of Units 4, 5, and 6 

(Map 3) follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61573 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2EP18OC06.002</GPH>
61574 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

(11) Unit 5: Old Capitol, Monterey 

County, California. 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. 

(12) Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula, 

Monterey County, California. 

(i) Subunit 6a: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Monterey. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 594042, 

4049355; 594060, 4049389; 594080, 

4049435; 594120, 4049486; 594160, 

4049538; 594186, 4049560; 594186, 

4049560; 594199, 4049572; 594209, 

4049570; 594210, 4049577; 594211, 

4049584; 594214, 4049592; 594216, 

4049600; 594219, 4049607; 594226, 

4049621; 594226, 4049621; 594201, 

4049634; 594188, 4049620; 594183, 

4049623; 594186, 4049648; 594202, 

4049675; 594225, 4049725; 594236, 

4049745; 594285, 4049805; 594296, 

4049823; 594348, 4049799; 594414, 

4049772; 594480, 4049792; 594500, 

4049738; 594525, 4049669; 594536, 

4049664; 594558, 4049652; 594572, 

4049654; 594574, 4049654; 594584, 

4049655; 594594, 4049663; 594613, 

4049676; 594636, 4049703; 594659, 

4049725; 594680, 4049752; 594698, 

4049786; 594718, 4049834; 594730, 

4049866; 594741, 4049919; 594754, 

4049979; 594759, 4049994; 594762, 

4050006; 594767, 4050021; 594788, 

4050040; 594822, 4050057; 594856, 

4050064; 594888, 4050101; 594890, 

4050107; 594890, 4050107; 594890, 

4050107; 594893, 4050118; 594893, 

4050118; 594897, 4050135; 594923, 

4050178; 594929, 4050187; 594942, 

4050217; 594960, 4050255; 594977, 

4050293; 594984, 4050307; 595002, 

4050317; 595010, 4050319; 595029, 

4050323; 595043, 4050348; 595059, 

4050386; 595076, 4050442; 595095, 

4050490; 595117, 4050527; 595139, 

4050569; 595145, 4050580; 595154, 

4050597; 595176, 4050568; 595176, 

4050568; 595176, 4050568; 595177, 

4050567; 595179, 4050562; 595191, 

4050537; 595193, 4050537; 595299, 

4050514; 595410, 4050489; 595534, 

4050334; 595574, 4050254; 595621, 

4050214; 595660, 4050192; 595699, 

4050182; 595717, 4050202; 595734, 

4050221; 595727, 4050281; 595736, 

4050293; 595873, 4050316; 595930, 

4050395; 595864, 4050455; 595764, 

4050427; 595707, 4050454; 595647, 

4050504; 595634, 4050564; 595487, 

4050691; 595467, 4050714; 595431, 

4050724; 595392, 4050744; 595365, 

4050761; 595352, 4050767; 595321, 

4050788; 595289, 4050807; 595247, 

4050821; 595216, 4050825; 595193, 

4050821; 595168, 4050807; 595149, 

4050788; 595133, 4050854; 595118, 

4050877; 595103, 4050891; 595065, 

4050904; 595041, 4050911; 595023, 

4050924; 595020, 4050951; 595024, 

4050979; 595026, 4051003; 595020, 

4051027; 595009, 4051050; 595004, 

4051061; 594998, 4051078; 595000, 

4051101; 595019, 4051141; 595021, 

4051141; 595096, 4051140; 595283, 

4050888; 595286, 4050883; 595302, 

4050862; 595316, 4050843; 595326, 

4050829; 595340, 4050811; 595353, 

4050793; 595360, 4050788; 595368, 

4050784; 595378, 4050779; 595393, 

4050779; 595401, 4050778; 595945, 

4051094; 595954, 4051085; 595953, 

4051067; 595953, 4051052; 595956, 

4051034; 595962, 4051011; 595972, 

4050988; 595984, 4050968; 595999, 

4050949; 596034, 4050912; 596120, 

4050848; 596127, 4050849; 596411, 

4050626; 596492, 4050566; 596499, 

4050555; 596505, 4050545; 596510, 

4050531; 596514, 4050504; 596513, 

4050484; 596493, 4050421; 596436, 

4050261; 596403, 4050199; 596363, 

4050134; 596358, 4050092; 596367, 

4050043; 596369, 4050008; 596347, 

4049956; 596334, 4049923; 596338, 

4049884; 596364, 4049835; 596419, 

4049811; 596418, 4049788; 596386, 

4049777; 596366, 4049761; 596351, 

4049725; 596344, 4049705; 596331, 

4049695; 596302, 4049685; 596300, 

4049645; 596303, 4049619; 596310, 

4049598; 596310, 4049570; 596298, 

4049555; 596282, 4049541; 596269, 

4049528; 596260, 4049515; 596257, 

4049491; 596272, 4049459; 596281, 

4049429; 596298, 4049389; 596297, 

4049372; 596273, 4049351; 596257, 

4049328; 596165, 4049100; 596121, 

4048994; 596115, 4048961; 596149, 

4048916; 596170, 4048889; 596213, 

4048863; 596294, 4048862; 596317, 

4048787; 596334, 4048725; 596363, 

4048682; 596382, 4048673; 596404, 

4048692; 596418, 4048724; 596441, 

4048707; 596482, 4048660; 596510, 

4048641; 596535, 4048624; 596560, 

4048606; 596597, 4048578; 596650, 

4048554; 596670, 4048550; 596714, 

4048542; 596828, 4048530; 596877, 

4048530; 596953, 4048515; 597027, 

4048494; 597074, 4048467; 597083, 

4048454; 597095, 4048440; 597101, 

4048435; 597113, 4048427; 597129, 

4048418; 597144, 4048412; 597144, 

4048412; 597179, 4048380; 597185, 

4048367; 597188, 4048353; 597190, 

4048340; 597188, 4048335; 597185, 

4048334; 597181, 4048335; 597167, 

4048347; 597155, 4048355; 597142, 

4048360; 597130, 4048364; 597110, 

4048364; 597093, 4048361; 597077, 

4048357; 597061, 4048349; 597050, 

4048339; 597040, 4048327; 597033, 

4048313; 597025, 4048298; 597008, 

4048250; 596999, 4048219; 596952, 

4048161; 596940, 4048145; 596932, 

4048120; 596924, 4048089; 596907, 

4048061; 596894, 4048049; 596832, 

4048022; 596755, 4047999; 596739, 

4047993; 596727, 4047994; 596689, 

4047953; 596684, 4047941; 596673, 

4047919; 596661, 4047899; 596648, 

4047880; 596633, 4047862; 596542, 

4047754; 596521, 4047739; 596505, 

4047733; 596457, 4047724; 596448, 

4047722; 596433, 4047716; 596297, 

4047644; 596283, 4047635; 596219, 

4047584; 596203, 4047567; 596197, 

4047557; 596189, 4047539; 596162, 

4047442; 596143, 4047424; 596132, 

4047419; 596115, 4047406; 596102, 

4047389; 596085, 4047359; 596074, 

4047346; 596073, 4047346; 596048, 

4047336; 596016, 4047368; 595973, 

4047400; 595909, 4047425; 595871, 

4047443; 595866, 4047522; 595864, 

4047593; 595869, 4047666; 595879, 

4047727; 595867, 4047743; 595873, 

4047766; 595843, 4047773; 595787, 

4047843; 595837, 4047877; 595879, 

4047903; 595911, 4047941; 595919, 

4047961; 595892, 4047965; 595863, 

4047958; 595831, 4047945; 595805, 

4047942; 595710, 4047940; 595700, 

4047952; 595604, 4048051; 595588, 

4048057; 595588, 4048057; 595526, 

4048089; 595503, 4048118; 595500, 

4048132; 595501, 4048132; 595523, 

4048139; 595564, 4048156; 595629, 

4048169; 595633, 4048198; 595675, 

4048232; 595672, 4048266; 595697, 

4048321; 595839, 4048309; 595893, 

4048311; 595982, 4048325; 595982, 

4048326; 595973, 4048416; 595974, 

4048417; 596135, 4048438; 596250, 

4048453; 596208, 4048594; 596220, 

4048603; 596230, 4048623; 596230, 

4048640; 596214, 4048726; 596218, 

4048781; 596209, 4048811; 596194, 

4048831; 596092, 4048892; 596065, 

4048812; 596032, 4048759; 596003, 

4048730; 595973, 4048714; 595902, 

4048696; 595860, 4048696; 595816, 

4048699; 595797, 4048707; 595797, 

4048707; 595762, 4048723; 595761, 

4048723; 595761, 4048723; 595738, 

4048743; 595724, 4048754; 595691, 

4048770; 595647, 4048782; 595603, 

4048789; 595535, 4048794; 595498, 

4048787; 595467, 4048768; 595434, 

4048737; 595412, 4048700; 595390, 

4048656; 595347, 4048557; 595329, 

4048521; 595307, 4048501; 595284, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61575 

4048492; 595254, 4048491; 595253, 

4048560; 595225, 4048650; 595206, 

4048683; 595202, 4048703; 595204, 

4048726; 595225, 4048780; 595225, 

4048914; 595221, 4048940; 595134, 

4049008; 595110, 4049027; 595080, 

4049069; 595055, 4049143; 595117, 

4049144; 595138, 4049143; 595159, 

4049139; 595177, 4049133; 595194, 

4049129; 595211, 4049127; 595227, 

4049127; 595274, 4049131; 595291, 

4049131; 595308, 4049127; 595322, 

4049123; 595348, 4049121; 595406, 

4049120; 595417, 4049125; 595437, 

4049123; 595459, 4049128; 595480, 

4049130; 595499, 4049127; 595516, 

4049127; 595527, 4049129; 595545, 

4049126; 595578, 4049110; 595609, 

4049085; 595627, 4049083; 595670, 

4049080; 595745, 4049061; 595776, 

4049065; 595849, 4049113; 595883, 

4049145; 595905, 4049177; 595928, 

4049224; 595759, 4049459; 595669, 

4049397; 595607, 4049449; 595585, 

4049455; 595551, 4049447; 595530, 

4049431; 595480, 4049433; 595477, 

4049360; 595505, 4049358; 595511, 

4049327; 595522, 4049306; 595551, 

4049280; 595538, 4049206; 595524, 

4049167; 595514, 4049162; 595495, 

4049184; 595407, 4049319; 595397, 

4049331; 595379, 4049347; 595359, 

4049358; 595245, 4049401; 595233, 

4049415; 595233, 4049456; 595168, 

4049481; 595109, 4049477; 595063, 

4049473; 595058, 4049541; 595079, 

4049564; 595101, 4049570; 595119, 

4049575; 595140, 4049583; 595150, 

4049614; 595159, 4049642; 595129, 

4049673; 595089, 4049729; 595067, 

4049769; 595039, 4049810; 595027, 

4049835; 595027, 4049850; 595037, 

4049882; 595060, 4049943; 595073, 

4050017; 595084, 4050057; 595080, 

4050092; 595068, 4050106; 595039, 

4050113; 595011, 4050113; 595000, 

4050110; 594992, 4050092; 594983, 

4050071; 594980, 4050052; 594952, 

4049976; 594931, 4049939; 594909, 

4049900; 594877, 4049856; 594837, 

4049828; 594813, 4049826; 594781, 

4049831; 594762, 4049831; 594743, 

4049814; 594724, 4049770; 594673, 

4049654; 594653, 4049610; 594587, 

4049530; 594576, 4049518; 594569, 

4049501; 594573, 4049485; 594616, 

4049457; 594661, 4049433; 594719, 

4049386; 594766, 4049332; 594781, 

4049301; 594781, 4049266; 594774, 

4049243; 594767, 4049231; 594766, 

4049230; 594743, 4049236; 594740, 

4049237; 594731, 4049252; 594720, 

4049264; 594713, 4049273; 594705, 

4049278; 594675, 4049290; 594647, 

4049296; 594627, 4049311; 594614, 

4049320; 594602, 4049334; 594583, 

4049337; 594573, 4049332; 594557, 

4049320; 594543, 4049303; 594543, 

4049289; 594547, 4049271; 594547, 

4049252; 594538, 4049237; 594472, 

4049167; 594453, 4049150; 594437, 

4049127; 594416, 4049094; 594390, 

4049038; 594378, 4049025; 594360, 

4049005; 594350, 4048993; 594342, 

4048973; 594275, 4048961; 594283, 

4049001; 594348, 4049199; 594354, 

4049218; 594277, 4049241; 594269, 

4049243; 594268, 4049246; 594262, 

4049270; 594243, 4049267; 594200, 

4049304; 594176, 4049324; 594099, 

4049332; 594097, 4049332; 594090, 

4049333; 594078, 4049335; 594059, 

4049339; returning to 594042, 4049355. 

(ii) Subunit 6b: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Monterey. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 593410, 

4048743; 593463, 4048782; 593479, 

4048793; 593532, 4048832; 593564, 

4048847; 593574, 4048849; 593597, 

4048853; 593599, 4048854; 593636, 

4048853; 593671, 4048844; 593790, 

4048784; 593794, 4048779; 593794, 

4048778; 593777, 4048726; 593769, 

4048678; 593768, 4048678; 593706, 

4048686; 593678, 4048693; 593650, 

4048707; 593605, 4048738; 593570, 

4048750; 593539, 4048752; 593451, 

4048741; 593442, 4048741; 593414, 

4048743; 593410, 4048743; 593601, 

4048844; 593601, 4048844; 593602, 

4048844; 593601, 4048844; returning to 

593601, 4048844. 

(iii) Subunit 6c: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Monterey. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 592908, 

4049902; 592972, 4049927; 593056, 

4049908; 593067, 4049902; 593075, 

4049896; 593086, 4049892; 593095, 

4049890; 593100, 4049881; 593101, 

4049853; 593115, 4049858; 593117, 

4049855; 593199, 4049893; 593232, 

4049897; 593269, 4049895; 593297, 

4049885; 593330, 4049880; 593343, 

4049884; 593353, 4049883; 593381, 

4049882; 593410, 4049883; 593424, 

4049883; 593464, 4049885; 593496, 

4049890; 593497, 4049882; 593523, 

4049886; 593522, 4049894; 593568, 

4049900; 593624, 4049900; 593672, 

4049895; 593693, 4049886; 593719, 

4049869; 593720, 4049870; 593753, 

4049842; 593772, 4049821; 593778, 

4049813; 593858, 4049767; 593921, 

4049727; 593938, 4049721; 593954, 

4049700; 593866, 4049654; 593835, 

4049631; 593788, 4049596; 593647, 

4049542; 593623, 4049506; 593620, 

4049504; 593616, 4049502; 593613, 

4049501; 593609, 4049500; 593606, 

4049499; 593466, 4049474; 593458, 

4049472; 593458, 4049472; 593485, 

4049508; 593505, 4049526; 593524, 

4049558; 593550, 4049606; 593560, 

4049626; 593597, 4049668; 593601, 

4049683; 593600, 4049694; 593592, 

4049700; 593587, 4049706; 593595, 

4049726; 593595, 4049735; 593581, 

4049746; 593564, 4049751; 593530, 

4049751; 593504, 4049743; 593486, 

4049731; 593473, 4049706; 593459, 

4049689; 593427, 4049662; 593407, 

4049643; 593375, 4049625; 593349, 

4049607; 593329, 4049575; 593318, 

4049552; 593315, 4049537; 593309, 

4049515; 593290, 4049495; 593258, 

4049449; 593233, 4049441; 593224, 

4049449; 593213, 4049463; 593201, 

4049478; 593188, 4049506; 593175, 

4049525; 593136, 4049566; 593102, 

4049575; 593011, 4049600; 592952, 

4049640; 592936, 4049694; 592929, 

4049732; 592917, 4049759; 592919, 

4049789; 592938, 4049832; 592929, 

4049862; 592911, 4049885; returning to 

592908, 4049902. 

(iv) 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. 

(v) Subunit 6e: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Monterey. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 595291, 

4052402; 595329, 4052406; 595339, 

4052409; 595340, 4052409; 595341, 

4052409; 595343, 4052408; 595345, 

4052408; 595347, 4052408; 595347, 

4052408; 595348, 4052408; 595350, 

4052408; 595352, 4052408; 595354, 

4052408; 595355, 4052408; 595357, 

4052408; 595359, 4052408; 595359, 

4052408; 595361, 4052408; 595362, 

4052409; 595364, 4052409; 595366, 

4052409; 595367, 4052409; 595368, 

4052409; 595369, 4052410; 595371, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
61576 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

4052410; 595373, 4052410; 595375, 

4052411; 595376, 4052411; 595378, 

4052411; 595380, 4052412; 595381, 

4052412; 595383, 4052413; 595385, 

4052413; 595386, 4052414; 595388, 

4052415; 595390, 4052415; 595391, 

4052416; 595393, 4052417; 595395, 

4052417; 595396, 4052418; 595398, 

4052419; 595399, 4052420; 595401, 

4052421; 595402, 4052421; 595404, 

4052422; 595405, 4052423; 595407, 

4052424; 595408, 4052425; 595410, 

4052426; 595411, 4052427; 595413, 

4052428; 595413, 4052429; 595425, 

4052437; 595487, 4052472; 595545, 

4052518; 595568, 4052552; 595573, 

4052559; 595784, 4052447; 595838, 

4052419; 595828, 4052400; 595798, 

4052339; 595762, 4052252; 595750, 

4052224; 595736, 4052189; 595703, 

4052124; 595687, 4052091; 595683, 

4052085; 595672, 4052070; 595634, 

4052047; 595633, 4052045; 595631, 

4052043; 595630, 4052041; 595629, 

4052039; 595628, 4052036; 595627, 

4052034; 595626, 4052032; 595625, 

4052030; 595624, 4052028; 595623, 

4052025; 595622, 4052023; 595621, 

4052021; 595620, 4052019; 595619, 

4052016; 595618, 4052014; 595618, 

4052012; 595617, 4052009; 595616, 

4052007; 595616, 4052005; 595615, 

4052002; 595615, 4052000; 595614, 

4051998; 595614, 4051995; 595613, 

4051993; 595613, 4051991; 595613, 

4051988; 595613, 4051986; 595612, 

4051983; 595612, 4051981; 595612, 

4051978; 595612, 4051976; 595612, 

4051974; 595612, 4051971; 595612, 

4051969; 595612, 4051966; 595612, 

4051964; 595612, 4051961; 595612, 

4051959; 595613, 4051957; 595613, 

4051954; 595613, 4051952; 595614, 

4051949; 595614, 4051947; 595614, 

4051945; 595615, 4051942; 595615, 

4051940; 595616, 4051938; 595617, 

4051935; 595617, 4051933; 595618, 

4051931; 595619, 4051928; 595619, 

4051926; 595620, 4051923; 595624, 

4051913; 595628, 4051903; 595633, 

4051892; 595638, 4051881; 595643, 

4051871; 595654, 4051846; 595656, 

4051842; 595662, 4051823; 595552, 

4051784; 595422, 4051737; 595412, 

4051790; 595404, 4051836; 595403, 

4051843; 595403, 4051846; 595402, 

4051858; 595401, 4051872; 595399, 

4051887; 595397, 4051902; 595394, 

4051917; 595391, 4051931; 595389, 

4051946; 595386, 4051961; 595382, 

4051975; 595378, 4051990; 595375, 

4052004; 595370, 4052018; 595370, 

4052020; 595369, 4052021; 595366, 

4052033; 595361, 4052047; 595356, 

4052061; 595351, 4052075; 595346, 

4052089; 595340, 4052103; 595334, 

4052116; 595331, 4052120; 595329, 

4052123; 595324, 4052129; 595324, 

4052130; 595323, 4052138; returning to 

595291, 4052402. 

(13) Unit 7: Point Lobos Ranch, 

Monterey County, California. 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. Note: Map of Units 7 

and 8 (Map 4) follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61577 

BILLING CODE 4319–55–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2EP18OC06.003</GPH>
61578 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

(14) Unit 8: Palo Colorado, Monterey 

County, California. 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. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 3, 2006. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 06–8600 Filed 10–17–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2