60410 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU34 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Piperia yadonii (Yadon’s 

piperia) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for the 

endangered Piperia yadonii (Yadon’s 

piperia) pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

In total, approximately 2,117 acres (ac) 

(857 hectares (ha)) fall within the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The critical habitat is 

located in Monterey County, California. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

November 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, in the branch of 

Endangered Species, at the Ventura Fish 

and Wildlife Office (VFWO), 2493 

Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 

93003. The final rule, economic 

analysis, and map are also available on 

the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

ventura. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, VFWO, at 

the above address (telephone (805) 644– 

1766, ext. 319; facsimile (805) 644– 

3958). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339, 7 

days a week and 24 hours a day. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat in this 

rule. For more information on Piperia 

yadonii, refer to the proposed critical 

habitat rule published on October 18, 

2006 (71 FR 61546) and the final listing 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on August 12, 1998 (63 FR 43100). 

Previous Federal Actions 

For more information on previous 

Federal actions concerning Piperia 

yadonii, refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 12, 1998 (63 FR 43100) and 

proposed critical habitat rule published 

in the Federal Register on October 18, 

2006 (71 FR 61546). On August 7, 2007, 

we published a notice announcing the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis (DEA), and reopening of the 

public comment period (72 FR 44069). 

This comment period closed on 

September 6, 2007. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii in 

the proposed rule published on October 

18, 2006 (71 FR 61546). We also 

contacted appropriate Federal, State, 

and local agencies; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposed rule. The initial comment 

period ended December 18, 2006. We 

published newspaper notices on 

October 26, 2006, in the Monterey 

Herald, Monterey, California, inviting 

public comment on the proposed 

critical habitat designation. 

During the comment period that 

opened on October 18, 2006, and closed 

on December 18, 2006, we received 9 

comments directly addressing the 

proposed critical habitat designation: 3 

from peer reviewers, 1 from a State 

agency, and 5 from organizations or 

individuals. During the comment period 

that opened on August 7, 2007, and 

closed on September 6, 2007, we 

received 8 comments directly 

addressing the proposed critical habitat 

designation and the draft economic 

analysis. All of these latter comments 

were from organizations or individuals 

and some organizations and individuals 

provided comments during both 

comment periods. Overall, 12 

commenters supported a designation of 

critical habitat for P. yadonii, and 3 

commenters opposed parts of the 

proposed designation. All comments 

and new information relating to the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

P. yadonii are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule as appropriate. We 

did not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from three knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received responses from 

all three peer reviewers. The peer 

reviewers generally agreed that the 

technical information and primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) identified 

in the proposed designation were 

accurate and that those areas that we 

did propose as critical habitat should be 

included. However, all three peer 

reviewers suggested that the designation 

should be expanded to include 

additional areas and increase the size of 

existing units. They also provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

critical habitat rule and the conservation 

of the species. Peer reviewer comments 

are addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding critical habitat for 

Piperia yadonii, and address them in the 

following summary. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

1. Comment: One peer reviewer 

indicated that the proposed designation 

emphasizes land ownership and 

proposed land use over biological or 

ecological factors in determining the 

size and boundaries of units. The peer 

reviewer replicated the process we 

identified in the rule and provided an 

analysis of six of our proposed subunits 

in Units 1, 2, and 3 as support for this 

assertion. The peer reviewer showed 

that those subunits that were on, or 

surrounded by, typical (nonconservation oriented) private lands 

encompassed a substantially smaller 

proportion of the appropriate 

surrounding habitat for Piperia yadonii 

than those subunits that were on, or 

surrounded by, lands owned by a 

conservation-oriented organization. The 

peer reviewer further stated that an 

unbiased designation of critical habitat 

could provide great conservation benefit 

to P. yadonii, as evidenced by four 

policies in the County of Monterey 

General Plan update. These policies 

emphasize conservation of designated 

critical habitat areas in evaluating and 

approving proposed land uses. The peer 

reviewer recommended that we redo the 

designation, focusing solely on the 

presence of PCEs and eliminating any 

bias introduced by assigning preference 

to a hierarchy of land ownership types. 

Our Response: Our method for 

designating areas as critical habitat was 

described in the proposed rule under 

the sections ‘‘Criteria Used to Identify 

Critical Habitat’’ and ‘‘Mapping’’ and is 

reiterated here. See our answer to 

comment 18. In determining the extent 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60411 

of lands necessary to ensure the 

conservation and persistence of Piperia 

yadonii, we identified all areas that 

contain those biological and physical 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. These lands include those 

that are either already protected, 

managed, or otherwise unencumbered 

by conflicting use (e.g., undeveloped 

County or City parks, proposed 

preservation areas). These populations 

are most likely to persist into the future 

and to contribute to the species’ survival 

and recovery. We also included 

undeveloped Federal and State lands, 

then local agency and private lands with 

recognized resource conservation 

emphasis (e.g., lands owned by a 

conservation-oriented organization, 

undeveloped County or City parks), and 

finally other agency and private lands. 

We agree that land use considerations 

were a factor used to delineate the 

boundaries of some units or subunits; 

however, we did not exclude from 

consideration any subunits based solely 

on land ownership. In those cases where 

we determined that a site had the 

features essential to the conservation of 

Piperia yadonii, we designated the site 

(e.g., Units 2b and 7). Where a site 

included a mix of land ownership (i.e., 

lands that were owned or proposed for 

conservation by the State and lands that 

were not), we typically reduced the 

subunit to the boundaries of the 

conservation-oriented lands, in an effort 

to minimize the designation of lands 

that were private or were used or 

proposed for activities that would not be 

conducive to conservation (e.g., 

development) while ensuring that 

sufficient lands were designated in each 

unit to enable the unit to serve its 

conservation function. We ensured that 

our designation included areas 

distributed throughout the geographic 

range of the species and encompassed 

the habitat variation in elevation, soil 

types, plant communities, and distance 

from the coast (inland versus coastal) 

present in P. yadonii occupied habitat. 

2. Comment: One peer reviewer 

supported our inclusion of multiple 

subunits east of Highway 101 in the 

Prunedale Hills (Unit 3). The peer 

reviewer agreed with the Service’s 

reasons for including these subunits (to 

conserve genetic variation and prevent 

range collapse) and further stated that 

the plant community at these somewhat 

xeric, less coastally influenced sites may 

be more stable in the long term, with 

slower rates of successional conversion 

to oak woodland, than those sites to the 

west. The peer reviewer stated that 

gradual, successional loss of suitable 

habitat may be a significant threat over 

the long term and suggested that, at a 

minimum, we scan high-resolution 

aerial photographs of currently 

occupied sites to identify and delineate 

regions where patches of broken canopy 

and scattered areas of bare ground are 

visible. The peer reviewer provided 

historical and current aerial 

photography of four subunits in 

chaparral and one subunit in Monterey 

pine forest to support the assertion that 

canopy cover throughout the range of 

Piperia yadonii has increased since the 

1930s and 1940s. 

Our Response: We have considered 

the information the peer reviewer 

provided and agree that increased 

canopy cover in the ridgetop maritime 

chaparral of the Prunedale Hills may 

threaten Piperia yadonii by reducing 

available habitat. We discussed this in 

the proposed rule under the 

‘‘Background’’ and ‘‘Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protections’’ sections. Although the 

vegetation cover in the region in which 

Unit 3 is designated may be increasing 

more slowly than in those areas to the 

west (in the region of Units 1 and 2), the 

natural lands in and around Unit 3 are 

also more highly fragmented and 

developed than those areas west of 

Highway 1, around Units 1 and 2. With 

increasing development, the 

opportunities to use vegetation 

management tools, such as prescribed 

fire, which both reduce the vegetation 

canopy and alter soil nutrient 

availability in ways with which the 

chaparral plant community has evolved, 

are much reduced. Given the 

information we currently have, that 

greater fragmentation exists and that 

known population sizes of P. yadonii 

are generally smaller as one moves east 

in Unit 3, we are not proposing to 

increase the size of the subunits in Unit 

3 in an attempt to capture areas of more 

open canopy. We have added discussion 

to the description of Unit 3, recognizing 

the potentially slower successional 

changes in Unit 3, and will consider this 

information in making conservation 

recommendations for the entire 

Prunedale Hills area. 

3. Comment: Two peer reviewers 

questioned our decision not to include 

in the critical habitat designation those 

areas where Piperia yadonii populations 

inhabit less than 5 acres and are 

surrounded by development. One peer 

reviewer stated that not including these 

smaller populations is not conducive to 

the long-term conservation of the 

species, because they may have large 

impacts on gene flow and genetic 

diversity and because they can provide 

connectivity to larger populations that 

we did include in the designation. The 

peer reviewer specifically cited areas 

that support the Fort Ord, Skyline Drive, 

and Monterey Airport populations, none 

of which we included in the proposal. 

The peer reviewer urged the Service to 

work with landowners and other 

entities to develop a coordinated 

conservation strategy for these smaller 

populations. 

Our Response: We recognize that all 

populations of Piperia yadonii may 

provide conservation value to the 

species and we indicated this in the 

proposed rule, as the Peer Reviewer 

acknowledged, by stating ‘‘* * * those 

populations that have become isolated 

as a result of development may 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species through educational, research, 

and other mechanisms, but overall have 

a lower potential for long-term 

preservation and lesser conservation 

value to the species.’’ We believe that 

small areas with surrounding 

development have a lower conservation 

value to the species because they are 

less likely to have and maintain the 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. In general, 

we seek to identify the minimum 

amount and optimum distribution of 

lands that support the PCEs to designate 

as critical habitat. Therefore, we did not 

include all populations in this 

designation. 

In determining which sites to select, 

we concluded that those populations 

that are in highly developed areas are 

less likely to act as intermediaries in 

facilitating gene flow between 

populations, because pollinators are less 

likely to successfully move through 

residential and commercial areas to 

reach these islands of native vegetation 

and because wind-dispersed seeds are 

less likely to land in areas suitable for 

germination in highly fragmented 

landscapes. Of the specific sites 

mentioned by the peer reviewer, the 

Monterey Airport property and those 

fragmented populations along Garden 

Road are surrounded by the greatest 

level of development. The Skyline Drive 

site (California Natural Diversity 

Database (CNDDB) element occurrence 

(EO) 19) is on the Monterey Peninsula 

where we designated the larger 

expanses of Monterey pine forest with 

larger populations of P. yadonii 

(Subunit 6a) and those smaller sites, like 

Crocker Grove (Subunit 6d), that 

include plant associations not 

represented elsewhere. 

The Fort Ord site in Marina (CNDDB 

EO 9) had not been found in over a 

decade, when a single plant was 

rediscovered in 2006, while we were 

drafting this rule. The second, more 

recently discovered Fort Ord site, near 

the boundary of the Monterey Airport, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60412 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

consists of fewer than 10 plants. We 

recognize that the Fort Ord sites, 

particularly the northern one, are 

geographically isolated from other 

concentrations of Piperia yadonii and, if 

the northern site is found to support a 

population, it may therefore harbor 

genetic diversity not found elsewhere in 

the range of P. yadonii. As further 

information on the genetic diversity of 

this species becomes available, we will 

evaluate it and refine our conservation 

strategy for P. yadonii. However, we 

cannot determine at this time that the 

area has the features that are essential 

for the conservation of the species. We 

recognize that designation of critical 

habitat may not include all of the 

habitat areas that may eventually be 

determined to be necessary for the 

recovery of the species. For this reason, 

critical habitat designations do not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designation is unimportant or may not 

be required for recovery. We will 

continue to work with landowners on 

the conservation of P. yadonii 

throughout its range, including in those 

areas that are not designated as critical 

habitat. 

4. Comment: One peer reviewer 

indicated that there are substantial gaps 

in the scientific information available 

on the genetics, seed dispersal, plant 

associations, and fire ecology of Piperia 

yadonii. The peer reviewer 

recommended that we collect this data 

in order to complete the critical habitat 

designation and to develop management 

strategies for P. yadonii. The peer 

reviewer provided observations on the 

response of two other Piperia species in 

California to fire. In one example, a 

small population of P. leptopetala may 

have been substantially reduced in 

abundance by a chaparral fire and in the 

other, a chaparral fire appears to have 

stimulated the above-ground expression 

of P. cooperi. 

Our Response: We recognize that 

information on many attributes of the 

life history, genetics, and habitat needs 

of Piperia yadonii is extremely limited. 

Our critical habitat designations are 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available at the time of 

the designation. As more complete 

information becomes available for P. 

yadonii, we will incorporate it into our 

recovery strategy for this species. We 

appreciate the information the peer 

reviewer provided on fire ecology and 

recognize that genetic research is being 

conducted that may influence our 

understanding of genetic diversity 

within P. yadonii. While we do not 

develop management strategies as part 

of the designation of critical habitat, we 

do consider site-specific management 

strategies important to the conservation 

of the species and work with land 

owners, researchers, and others, to 

develop and implement them as part of 

the recovery process. 

5. Comment: One peer reviewer 

recommended that we gather more 

information on pollinator flight range 

and seed dispersal in an attempt to 

determine if the critical habitat units are 

close enough to allow gene flow 

between them. 

Our Response: We have contacted 

several research scientists who 

specialize in moths and have 

reevaluated the available literature on 

pollinators and seed dispersal in 

orchids. We believe there are no 

additional data available, beyond what 

we cited in the proposed rule, on either 

the seed dispersal distances of orchids 

or the flight distances of potential 

pollinators, that would allow us to 

determine the likelihood of gene flow 

between critical habitat units or 

subunits. While data on the flight 

distance of relatively large moths in the 

family Sphingidae (sphinx months) 

exist, very few data are available on the 

distances small moths may transport 

pollen. In our designation, we attempted 

to address the need to maintain gene 

flow between patches of plants that are 

within meters of one another. We did so 

by encompassing within the same 

subunits (e.g., in Units 1 and 2) those 

patches of Piperia yadonii plants that 

occur on the same ridgeline in maritime 

chaparral, and by encompassing 

multiple patches of plants within the 

same subunits (e.g., in Unit 6) in 

Monterey pine forest. 

6. Comment: Two peer reviewers 

indicated that genetic diversity was not 

adequately considered in the criteria 

used to designate critical habitat. One 

peer reviewer suggested it could be 

considered a PCE, or that environmental 

proxies could be used in the absence of 

information on the spatial pattern of 

genetic variation in Piperia yadonii. One 

peer reviewer noted that genetic 

research on P. yadonii is underway and 

some results should soon be available. 

Our Response: We agree that little is 

known about the spatial pattern of 

genetic variation in Piperia yadonii 

populations, and we are aware of, and 

are interested in, the genetic research on 

P. yadonii being conducted. Based on 

the Act, PCEs are always habitat features 

rather than intrinsic population 

characteristics. Therefore, genetic 

diversity cannot be considered a PCE. 

However, in this designation, we did 

consider that genetic variation may be a 

reflection of environmental variation. 

We have attempted to encompass 

variation in habitat, as an indicator of 

populations that may be exposed to 

differing selective pressures, and 

therefore may have diverged genetically 

and represent a range of genetic 

variation in P. yadonii. As we discussed 

in the proposed rule under ‘‘Criteria 

Used to Identify Critical Habitat,’’ our 

methods included designating sites that 

encompass the range of elevational 

differences, plant communities, and soil 

types in which P. yadonii occurs. 

7. Comment: One peer reviewer stated 

that the designation should be more 

conservation-oriented toward Piperia 

yadonii, given that the species is 

dependent on biological associates, such 

as mycorhizzal (fungal) associates, 

Monterey pines, and pollinators. The 

peer reviewer indicated that these close 

associations make Piperia yadonii more 

vulnerable to environmental changes, 

such as climate change. The peer 

reviewer, therefore, recommended that 

the rule contain larger areas and 

additional areas beyond what was 

included in the proposed designation. 

Our Response: We recognize that 

relatively little specific information 

exists on the relationship of Piperia 

yadonii to other biological associates 

within its habitat and the vulnerability 

of those associates to broad-scale 

environmental changes, such as forest 

structure changes due to pathogens or 

climate change. We previously funded 

research on P. yadonii’s breeding system 

and pollinators in an effort to determine 

the need for, and potential vulnerability 

of, pollinators. This research found that 

P. yadonii requires pollinators to set 

seed and is, therefore, highly dependent 

on pollinators, and that several of the 

likely pollinators of P. yadonii in the 

Monterey pine forest are moth species 

that have broad ranges and habitat 

preferences. Therefore, we are less 

concerned about the potential for 

environmental changes to affect 

pollinators in the Monterey pine forest 

plant communities. We recognize that 

little is known about the relative 

importance of the various species that 

pollinate P. yadonii, and that virtually 

nothing is known about pollination of P. 

yadonii in maritime chaparral. 

Therefore we have attempted to 

encompass the mosaic of adjacent plant 

community types in which patches of P. 

yadonii occur. Recognizing that larger 

sized units may potentially reduce the 

risk to P. yadonii from environmental 

change, we have attempted to designate 

as critical habitat areas of sufficient size 

to accommodate potential 

environmental changes. We have 

included reference to climate change in 

the discussion of how the PCEs were 

derived, but have not increased the size 

of any units beyond what we proposed. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60413 

8. Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that the uncertainty of 

Piperia yadonii’s actual range, its patchy 

distribution, and expected impacts of 

climate change constitute sufficient 

justification to designate units outside 

P. yadonii’s known range. The peer 

reviewer did not provide specific 

suggestions of locations that should be 

included. 

Our Response: While we generally 

agree with the rationale presented by 

the reviewer, we only designate critical 

habitat in areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing where the best available 

information indicates that these areas 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species. We have included areas 

throughout the range of Piperia yadonii 

within this designation, although not 

every population has been included. 

Within each portion of P. yadonii’s 

range, we reviewed known locations 

and surrounding habitat that support 

the PCEs. Based on our current 

information, we have concluded that 

there are no areas outside the species’

known range that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that 

therefore should be included in the 

designation. 

Comments From the Public 

9. Comment: Two commenters noted 

the thoroughness and quality of the 

technical information in the background 

section of the proposed rule and in the 

discussion of the PCEs and generally 

supported a designation of critical 

habitat for Piperia yadonii. However, 

one commenter questioned why the 

proposed designation did not include 

all or part of every occurrence of P. 

yadonii. They recommended that the 

designation include all occurrences of P. 

yadonii and urged the Service to add 

suitable unoccupied habitat to the 

designation. 

Our Response: See response to 

comment 3, above. 

10. Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the level of detail in the 

maps provided was insufficient to 

determine what proposed areas are 

included or not included in the 

designation, both on the Monterey 

Peninsula and in northern Monterey 

County. 

Our Response: We agree that it is 

often difficult to distinguish unit 

boundaries based on the resolution of 

maps published in the Federal Register. 

To provide additional clarity, we 

attempted to include adequate 

descriptions of the units in the proposed 

rule. We have reviewed those unit 

descriptions and have provided 

additional clarifying information to 

them in this final designation. For 

example, for units on the Peninsula, we 

included area names used in the 

environmental impact report for the 

Pebble Beach Company’s proposed 

development (Monterey County 2005). 

The public can request more explicit 

maps of the designation by contacting 

our office using any one of the methods 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section listed above. 

11. Comment: One commenter 

requested that the 6-acre portion of 

Stevenson School campus be deleted 

from critical habitat Subunit 6a, on the 

Monterey Peninsula, because the school 

intends to convert the property to an 

athletic field for student use in the 

future. The commenter states that, due 

to the property’s small size and location, 

this area is not essential to the 

conservation of Piperia yadonii, that 

enough habitat is being conserved on 

the Monterey Peninsula via the Pebble 

Beach Company’s proposed mitigation 

for their development plan, and that the 

inclusion of school property in the 

proposed designation will have adverse 

impacts on the school. They provided 

materials describing the school and its 

proposed site plan. 

Our Response: As we developed the 

designation, we evaluated all areas on 

the Monterey Peninsula that support the 

PCEs, including the area owned by 

Stevenson School. The Monterey 

Peninsula is the center of distribution of 

Piperia yadonii and supports over 70 

percent of all known plants. The 

Stevenson School property supports 

Monterey pine forest contiguous with a 

larger extent of Monterey pine forest 

encompassed within Subunit 6a. 

Because of its connection to other 

Monterey pine forest with a natural 

understory, we do not consider it too 

small to have the features that are 

essential to the conservation of P. 

yadonii. Although it has abundant shrub 

cover in some areas, in other areas it 

supports a more open herbaceous 

understory with scattered patches of P. 

yadonii (Steeck, 2007). We evaluated 

the materials submitted by the 

commenter and the potential economic 

costs to Stevenson School from the 

proposed designation in our draft 

economic analysis. Based on the 

School’s proposed plans for the site, we 

have decided to exclude this property 

from the final designation of critical 

habitat (see Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section below for more 

information). We are available to work 

with Stevenson School representatives 

on the conservation and recovery of P. 

yadonii and their future school 

development plans. 

12. Comment: One commenter stated 

that critical habitat on the Pebble Beach 

Company’s property should include 

only those areas designated by the 

Pebble Beach Company for conservation 

purposes. They asserted that other areas 

are not essential to the conservation of 

P. yadonii. They provided specific 

recommendations for modifications to 

several subunits, including excising all 

current and proposed roads that pass 

through the subunits of Unit 6. 

Our Response: We reviewed the 

materials submitted and grouped the 

requested modifications into four 

categories: (a) Requests to remove all 

current and proposed roads from the 

subunits of Unit 6; (b) small adjustment 

in boundaries where the designation 

appeared to extend beyond the 

boundaries of a proposed conservation 

or open space area into, or just beyond, 

existing roads or the golf course; (c) 

requests to remove areas supporting 

existing Monterey pine forest that the 

commenter indicates are ‘‘lots of 

record’’ but that Monterey County 

required be conserved, as mitigation, in 

the final environmental impact report 

(Monterey County 2005) for the Pebble 

Beach Company’s proposed 

development; and (d) more substantial 

modifications, which we individually 

discuss in the response to Comment 13, 

below. 

We addressed the former three 

categories in the following ways: 

(a) Roads: The Service does not 

typically map critical habitat at this 

level of detail, due to the time involved 

in attempting to exclude small, linear 

areas that lack the PCEs and would 

divide polygons. Lands covered by 

roads or other structures that do not 

support the PCEs are excluded by text 

in the final rule, as explained in the 

Mapping section. We recognize that 

some roads currently exist, but that 

adjustments to their current alignments 

are proposed that would eliminate 

habitat containing the PCEs. We have 

excluded, under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, proposed and existing roads in Unit 

6 in recognition of the conservation 

agreement signed by the Service and 

Pebble Beach Company. This agreement 

and the exclusions are discussed further 

in the section, Relationship of Critical 

Habitat to Approved Management 

Plans—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act, below. See Summary of 

Changes from Proposed Rule, below, for 

more information. 

(b) We have made some adjustments 

to the boundary of critical habitat in 

Subunit 6a around the corporate yard (a 

proposed development parcel (Monterey 

County 2005)), along Congress Road 

near the quarry site (extension of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60414 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

boundary over a road), and north of area 

I–1 (where a relatively recently 

constructed structure is visible in 2005 

aerial photography). 

(c) We have excluded areas within 

Subunits 6a and 6c, including those 

referred to by the Pebble Beach 

Company as areas F–1, J, and part of 

Area L, that support the PCEs of critical 

habitat and are identified as required 

mitigation areas, with some allowance 

for development, in the FEIR for Pebble 

Beach Company’s proposed 

development (Monterey County 2005). 

We make these exclusions in 

recognition of the conservation 

agreement signed by the Service and 

Pebble Beach Company. This agreement 

and the exclusions are discussed further 

in the section, Relationship of Critical 

Habitat to Approved Management 

Plans—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act, below. See Summary of 

Changes from Proposed Rule, below, for 

more information. 

13. Comment: A commenter 

representing the Pebble Beach Company 

suggested that we consider that two 

areas included in Unit 6 of the proposal, 

Indian Village/Area L (Subunit 6c) and 

Area B (Subunit 6e), contain greater 

shrub cover or riparian habitat than 

Piperia yadonii typically prefers. They 

also recommended we remove a portion 

of Subunit 6a referred to as Area D and 

reduce Unit 4 (Aguajito), to encompass 

only the suitable low-growing maritime 

chaparral habitat contiguous with the 

existing occurrence. 

Our Response: We have retained both 

Area B and its adjacent forested areas in 

Subunit 6e, as well as part of Area L and 

adjacent forest (Indian Village) in 

subunit 6c in this designation, because 

they contain the PCEs for Piperia 

yadonii. We have concluded that these 

areas have the features that are essential 

to conserve P. yadonii. We have 

excluded 2 ac (0.8 ha) of Subunit 6e 

(Area B) and about 9 acres (4 ha) of Area 

L in recognition of the overall benefits 

that designated critical habitat areas will 

receive under the conservation 

agreement signed by the Service and the 

Pebble Beach Company (see the section 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Approved Management Plans—

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

Act below for a discussion of this 

exclusion). 

For Unit 4 (Aguajito), we have 

reviewed the habitat proposed in the 

subunits and have considered the 

unique nature of the maritime chaparral 

on the shale and sandstone-derived soils 

within a large expanse of maritime 

chaparral and Monterey pine forest and 

concluded that the subunits we are 

designating contain the features 

essential to the conservation of P. 

yadonii. However, we have excluded 49 

acres of this unit in recognition of the 

overall benefits that Unit 4 will receive 

under the conservation agreement 

signed by the Service and the Pebble 

Beach Company (see the section 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Approved Management Plans—

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

Act below for a discussion of this 

exclusion). 

We have reviewed the habitat in 

subunit 6a, Area D, and agree with the 

commenter that it does not contain the 

features essential for the conservation of 

Piperia yadonii. We conclude that the 

dominance of coast live oak and open 

canopy with relatively few Monterey 

pines makes it less suitable for P. 

yadonii. Therefore, we have removed 35 

ac (14 ha) of Subunit 6a that do not 

contain the PCEs from this final critical 

habitat designation. See Summary of 

Changes from Proposed Rule, below, for 

more information. 

14. Comment: Three commenters 

recommended expansion of Subunit 6a 

to include Area F–2, about 17 acres (7 

ha) in Area F3, and an additional 13 ac 

(5 ha) of Area PQR, as defined in the 

Pebble Beach Company’s proposed 

development. 

Our Response: We did not propose or 

designate Areas F–2, most of F–3, or the 

13 ac (5 ha) in PQR because these 

locations support fewer Piperia yadonii 

plants compared to other locations in 

the Del Monte Forest that we are 

designating as critical habitat. These 

areas are also proposed for development 

by the Pebble Beach Company. 

Although we proposed conservation 

area F–1 as critical habitat, it is part of 

the exclusion we are making in this 

final designation, based on the 

conservation agreement we have signed 

with the Pebble Beach Company. See 

the section Relationship of Critical 

Habitat to Approved Management 

Plans—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act below for a discussion of this 

exclusion. Please also see our response 

to Comment 1 and 18. 

15. Comment: One commenter 

suggested that the Service should 

expand Subunit 6b to include all of 

Area MNOUV, which supports one of 

the two largest occurrences of Piperia 

yadonii known to exist. Area MNOUV is 

the name given to the collective areas 

that support 116 acres of Monterey pine 

forest and are proposed for development 

as a golf course by the Pebble Beach 

Company. The commenter referred to 

language in our proposed designation in 

which we indicated that the 

conservation role of P. yadonii critical 

habitat units is to support viable core 

populations. The commenter stated that 

Area MNOUV supports one of two 

viable core populations on the 

Peninsula and, as such, the Service 

should follow its own guidelines and 

include it in the designation. 

Our Response: Please see our 

response to Comment 18 for a 

description of how we designated 

critical habitat. We recognize that 

Subunit 6b is just one part of the large 

Piperia yadonii population found in 

Area MNOUV. Area MNOUV supports 

one of the two largest occurrences 

known to exist and is distributed within 

the second largest expanse of Monterey 

pine forest known to support P. yadonii. 

However, the Service determined the 

area did not have the features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. We determined the quantity 

and spatial characteristics of habitat 

needed for conservation, and this area 

was determined not to meet the 

definition of critical habitat. Please also 

see our response to Comment 1. 

16. Comment: One commenter asked 

if Subunits 3b and 3c were verified to 

support Piperia yadonii. 

Our Response: According to data 

supplied by the California Department 

of Transportation (Caltrans) during the 

preparation of the proposed rule 

(Robison 2006), populations of Piperia 

yadonii in Subunits 3b and 3c were 

visited while in flower and were 

verified to support the species. 

17. Comment: One commenter 

provided observations of habitat and 

population conditions of Piperia 

yadonii in and around Subunit 3a and 

suggested the designation be expanded 

to include a site near Subunit 3a that 

may contain many more P. yadonii than 

previously documented. The commenter 

stated that the planning process for the 

parcel where the population occurs did 

not appear to involve adequate surveys 

for P. yadonii, because the surveys were 

conducted during the fall. The 

commenter provided suggestions for 

protecting this site. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

technical information supplied and 

have incorporated it into the discussion 

of Subunit 3a, where appropriate. The 

population in question near Subunit 3a 

should be surveyed to get a positive 

identification of the Piperia species 

occurring there. Because we cannot 

determine at this time that the area 

meets the definition of critical habitat, 

we are not designating it in this final 

rule. The process of designating critical 

habitat does not involve the creation of 

preserves or management strategies; 

however, we frequently provide 

conservation recommendations to local 

agencies, and work with Federal 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60415 

agencies through the section 7 

consultation process, as we promote 

recovery of listed species. We will 

consider the technical information and 

suggestions provided by the commenter 

in planning and implementing recovery 

for this species. 

Comments Related to the Draft 

Economic Analysis 

18. Comment: The Draft Economic 

Analysis (DEA) fails to present a 

baseline that describes the conditions 

that would exist in the absence of 

critical habitat designation. Specifically, 

NPCC commented that the DEA 

estimated a large portion of the costs 

would be incurred by the Pebble Beach 

Company (PBC), but PBC would incur 

these costs with or without designation. 

While the DEA ‘‘directly attributed’’

PBC’s costs of invasive species control 

to designation, invasive species control 

provides many benefits, is required by 

CEQA, and was conducted in all areas, 

whether or not the species was present. 

Others commented that the DEA 

attributes delays to the designation that 

might be due to other sources. 

Our Response: The Final Economic 

Analysis (FEA) includes an Appendix 

which describes impacts expected to 

result because of the designation of 

critical habitat. That is, the Appendix 

presents the incremental impacts that 

would not be expected to occur in the 

absence of critical habitat. This 

appendix recognizes that most of the 

impacts quantified as coextensive 

impacts in the report are expected to 

occur regardless of the designation of 

critical habitat. 

19. Comment: The DEA makes no 

attempt to estimate how many projects 

or actions would involve a Federal 

nexus in the 20-year analysis and that 

the FEA should base estimates on such 

a prediction. 

Our Response: Appendix A of the 

FEA identifies projects that involve a 

Federal nexus to estimate the 

incremental impacts of the designation 

apart from the coextensive impacts 

quantified in the DEA. 

20. Comment: It is unlikely that the 

restriction on development in unit 2b is 

due to the proposed rule. It is also 

unlikely that the development in unit 2b 

would have been completely prevented. 

Our Response: The DEA does not 

attribute these impacts from lost 

development to the proposed rule, but 

describes them as impacts 

‘‘coextensive’’ with the designation of 

critical habitat. The FEA includes an 

Appendix describing incremental 

impacts. As described in Appendix A, 

the foregone development impacts in 

unit 2 are not considered to be 

incremental impacts of the critical 

habitat designation. Further, in the 

specific case of the proposed 

development in unit 2b, the FEA omits 

most of the impact from lost 

development that was originally 

included in the DEA, as information 

suggests it is unlikely that the entity 

will be prevented from developing. 

21. Comment: To estimate the cost of 

delay, the DEA solely relies on 

conversations with the developer and 

uses an interest rate of fifteen percent 

without explanation. 

Our Response: The DEA relied as 

much as possible on the County 

Planning and Building Department to 

determine what development had 

occurred in the past, what development 

was currently under review, and what 

development was planned for the 

future. The developer provided 

reasonable estimates of delay time. An 

interest rate of fifteen percent is a 

standard interest rate used to calculate 

the risk adjusted cost of capital to 

private developers. 

22. Comment: The DEA estimates on 

page 34 and 44 costs to PBC of as much 

as $4.5 million associated with invasive 

species control. Commenter states that it 

is unclear how the overall $4.5 million 

figure was determined. 

Our Response: The DEA does not 

include any estimated impacts of $4.5 

million as described. Total impacts to 

the PBC over 20 years in undiscounted 

dollars of invasive species removal 

efforts is estimated to be $0.97 million 

in units 4 and 5 (see page 34 of the DEA) 

and $2.87 million in unit 6 (see page 44 

of the DEA). As cited in footnotes 92 

and 104 of the DEA, impacts to the PBC 

are based on annual budget estimates 

provided by PBC. 

23. Comment: Commenter states that 

the DEA does not evaluate the evidence 

the Stevenson School provided on the 

large adverse impacts to the School. The 

commenter also noted that DEA does 

not comply with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) or Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Act (SBREFA) as it 

does not adequately analyze the impacts 

to the Stevenson School. 

Our Response: The FEA incorporates 

the previous comments made by the 

Stevenson School and evaluates impacts 

of piperia conservation on the School. 

Section V.F of the FEA estimates 

impacts to range from $0.006 million to 

$9.2 million (present value, three 

percent discount rate) as a result of 

possible restrictions on the 

implementation of the School’s Master 

Plan. The FEA also considers the 

impacts to the Stevenson School in the 

RFA and SBREFA. 

Comments from the State 

24. Comment: The California Coastal 

Commission questioned why the critical 

habitat designation on the Monterey 

Peninsula did not include any areas 

proposed for development by the Pebble 

Beach Company, including that part of 

the Monterey pine forest that supports 

roughly one-third of the known 

population of Piperia yadonii and is 

proposed for a golf course. The Coastal 

Commission noted that the Service 

provided no biological justification for 

the absence of this area in the 

designation. They recommended that 

the critical habitat be redrawn to 

include Monterey pine forest areas on 

the Monterey Peninsula that support P. 

yadonii and its habitat. 

Our Response: During the process of 

selecting critical habitat boundaries, we 

determined the PCEs for the species, 

and identified the quantity and spatial 

characteristics of PCEs needed for 

conservation. These are the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. In 

determining the appropriate spatial 

arrangement of PCEs, we identified 

areas where there were conflicts with 

development projects and assessed the 

likelihood of the species’ persistence 

and recovery absent designation of those 

areas. We determined that there was 

sufficient habitat for the species 

conservation without these lands. 

Therefore, our critical habitat 

designation does not include Pebble 

Beach Company development lands. 

We used a multi-step process to 

identify and delineate critical habitat 

units. First, we reviewed and mapped 

all known occurrences of Piperia 

yadonii, using the best available 

information. Next, we determined the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. To do this we defined the PCEs 

and then determined which areas 

contain PCEs that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. We 

evaluated which occupied areas were 

most likely to contribute to the longterm persistence of the species. We 

focused on locations with larger 

occurrences in larger areas of 

contiguous native habitat (greater than 5 

acres (2 ha), see below) that are more 

likely to support intact ecosystem 

processes and biotic assemblages, 

provide areas for population growth, 

and opportunities for colonization of 

adjacent areas. We then selected sites 

with the PCEs that: (a) Represented the 

geographic range of the species; (b) 

captured peripheral populations; (c) 

included the range of plant 

communities and soil types in which P. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60416 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

yadonii is found; (d) encompassed the 

elevation range over which the species 

occurs; and (e) maintained the 

connectivity of occurrences that grow 

on continuous ridgelines. From these 

areas we selected populations are most 

likely to persist into the future and to 

contribute to the species’ survival and 

recovery. Other areas that we 

determined to have the PCEs, that were 

not included in the proposed 

designation or this final designation, did 

not have the features that are essential 

to the conservation of the species. For 

more information on how critical 

habitat was determined, see Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat 

section, below. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

In preparing the final critical habitat 

designation for Piperia yadonii, we 

reviewed and considered comments 

from the public and peer reviewers on 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat published on October 18, 2006 

(71 FR 61546), and public comments on 

the draft economic analysis published 

on August 7, 2007 (72 FR 44069). As a 

result of comments received on the 

proposed rule and the DEA, and a 

reevaluation of the proposed critical 

habitat boundaries, we made changes to 

our proposed designation, as follows: 

(1) Based on exclusions under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, we reduced the size 

of several subunits of Unit 6 on the 

Monterey Peninsula and both subunits 

of Unit 4 (Aguajito) as discussed in 

responses to Comments 12 and 13 and 

in recognition of the development of a 

conservation agreement signed by the 

Service and the Pebble Beach Company. 

Collectively, this resulted in a reduction 

of Unit 6 from 1,059 acres (428 ha) to 

920 acres (372 ha) and Unit 4 from 157 

acres (63.5 ha) to 108 acres (43.7 ha). 

The acreages of the changes are 

provided in Table 2. We also excluded 

the Stevenson School for economic 

reasons. Further discussion of the 

conservation agreement and exclusions 

under the Act can be found later in this 

document starting with the section 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) and 

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

Act. 

(2) We added the names of parcels of 

land, where available, to the unit 

descriptions, to help readers understand 

the boundaries of the designation, given 

the rather low resolution of the maps. 

We added technical information, as 

discussed in the comments, to the 

descriptions of Unit 3. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring any 

endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided under the Act are no 

longer necessary. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires consultation on Federal actions 

that may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow government 

or public access to private lands. 

Section 7 of the Act is a purely 

protective measure and does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species must first have features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific data available, habitat 

areas that provide essential life cycle 

needs of the species (areas on which are 

found the primary constituent elements, 

as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Unoccupied areas can be designated 

as critical habitat. However, we will 

designate unoccupied areas only when 

the best available scientific data 

demonstrate that the conservation needs 

of the species require additional areas. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, the Service’s Policy 

on Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act, published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271), and Section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issued by the Service, 

provide criteria, establish procedures, 

and provide guidance to ensure that 

decisions made by the Service represent 

the best scientific data available. They 

require Service biologists to the extent 

consistent with the Act and with the use 

of the best scientific data available, to 

use primary and original sources of 

information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. When determining which areas 

are critical habitat, a primary source of 

information is generally the listing 

package for the species. Additional 

information sources may include the 

recovery plan for the species, articles in 

peer-reviewed journals, conservation 

plans developed by States and counties, 

scientific status surveys and studies, 

biological assessments, or other 

unpublished materials and expert 

opinion or personal knowledge. All 

information is used in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issued by the Service. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that may 

eventually be determined to be 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, critical 

habitat designations do not signal that 

habitat outside the designation is 

unimportant or may not be required for 

recovery. 

Areas that support populations of 

Piperia yadonii, but are outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to conservation 

actions implemented under section 

7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory 

protections afforded by the section 

7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined 

on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of the action. 

Federally funded or permitted projects 

affecting listed species outside their 

designated critical habitat areas may 

still result in jeopardy findings in some 

cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60417 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available in determining areas that 

contain features that are essential to the 

conservation of Piperia yadonii. This 

includes information from the final 

listing rule; data from research and 

survey observations published in 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 CNDDB. We 

have also reviewed available 

information that pertains to the ecology, 

life history, and habitat requirements of 

this species. This material included 

information and data in peer-reviewed 

articles, reports of monitoring and 

habitat characterizations, reports 

submitted during section 7 

consultations, the recovery plan for P. 

yadonii, and information received from 

local species experts. We did not 

designate as critical habitat any areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing. 

The range of Piperia yadonii extends 

through Monterey County from the Las 

Lomas area near the Santa Cruz County 

border in the north to approximately 15 

miles (25 kilometers) south of the 

Monterey Peninsula near Palo Colorado 

Canyon (Morgan and Ackerman 1990, 

208–210; Allen 1996, unpaginated). 

This range has been divided into the 

following five geographic areas for the 

purposes of recovery planning efforts: 

(1) The Monterey Peninsula; (2) the area 

interior of the Monterey Peninsula; (3) 

northern Monterey County-PrunedaleElkhorn; (4) the Point Lobos Ranch area; 

and (5) the Palo Colorado Canyon area 

(USFWS 2004, pp. 16–26, 50–52). We 

make reference to these geographic areas 

when describing the locations of P. 

yadonii populations and lands in this 

critical habitat designation. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas to 

propose as critical habitat, we consider 

those physical or biological features 

(PCEs) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and within 

areas occupied by the species at the 

time of listing, that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to, space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and habitats that are protected 

from disturbance or are representative of 

the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

The specific PCEs required for Piperia 

yadonii are derived from the biological 

needs of P. yadonii as described in the 

Background section of the proposed rule 

and below. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth, Including Sites for Seed 

Dispersal and Germination 

Piperia yadonii depends on adequate 

space for growth, reproduction between 

near and far neighbors, and for 

movement of seeds via wind to 

unoccupied microsites within 

populations, to population boundaries, 

and to new sites. Once dispersed, seeds 

must settle into sites with 

characteristics appropriate for 

germination, including the presence of 

fungal associates necessary for postgermination development. Maritime 

chaparral and pine forest communities 

in which P. yadonii and its fungal 

symbionts occur, exhibit considerable 

variability in vegetation density, species 

composition, and unvegetated gaps such 

that microsites appropriate for 

germination and growth are distributed 

unevenly throughout this mosaic. 

Plant communities such as maritime 

chaparral, Monterey pine forest, and 

coast live oak woodland are dynamic; in 

the absence of fire, maritime chaparral 

succeeds to oak woodland in mesic sites 

and to low-diversity stands of large 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) and 

withstand periodic extreme 

environmental stresses (e.g., drought, 

disease), and may act as important 

‘‘source’’ populations to allow 

recolonization of surrounding areas 

following periodic extreme 

environmental stresses. Small 

populations of plants may serve as 

corridors for gene flow between larger 

populations, and may harbor greater 

levels of genetic diversity than 

predicted for their size (Lesica and 

Allendorf 1995, pp. 172–175). 

Nutritional and Physiological 

Requirements, Including Light and Soil 

Requirements 

Piperia yadonii occurs in maritime 

chaparral, a coastal shrub association 

dominated by endemic species of 

manzanitas. It is most often found on 

ridges where exposed sandstone or 

decomposed granitic soils are shallow 

and where the dominant manzanita 

species are low-growing (preliminary 

measurements indicate an average of 6 

inches (15 centimeters) tall (Graff 2006, 

pp. 5–6)), allowing P. yadonii leaves to 

receive filtered sun and the 

inflorescence to extend above the 

decumbent manzanita branches. In the 

Elkhorn–Prunedale area, the transition 

from the low-growing manzanitas of the 

ridgetops to the surrounding slopes that 

support deeper soils and higher 

vegetation canopies is often abrupt (Van 

Dyke et al. 2001, p. 222). 

Although Piperia yadonii grows 

among manzanitas, the specific 

manzanita species vary among the 

geographic areas within the species 

range. Hooker’s manzanita 

(Arctostyphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri) is 

the manzanita species with which P. 

yadonii most commonly grows at its 

most northern distribution in the hills 

around Prunedale. Pajaro manzanita (A. 

pajaroensis) and chamise (Adenostoma 

fasciculatum) are other dominant shrubs 

in maritime chaparral there. On and 

south of the Monterey Peninsula, 

several manzanitas (A. hookeri, A. 

tomentosa, and A. glandulosa ssp. 

zacaensis) are reportedly the dominant 

shrubs among which it grows (Graff 

2006, p. 4; EcoSystems West 2006, p. 

64). Other species of manzanita (A. 

glandulosa) and manzanita hybrids are 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60418 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

the dominant low-growing forms at the 

southernmost occurrence of P. yadonii 

near Palo Colorado Canyon, where 

Hooker’s manzanita is absent (Norman 

1995, Graff 2006, p. 4). 

In Monterey pine forest, Piperia 

yadonii grows through pine needle duff 

where the native herbaceous vegetation 

cover is typically sparse, but diverse, 

and the Monterey pine canopy is of 

moderate density (20 to 70 percent on 

the Monterey Peninsula), providing 

filtered sunlight to the forest floor 

(EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 43, 62–68). 

The understory plant species most 

frequently associated with P. yadonii in 

the Monterey pine forest are the 

perennial herb common sanicle 

(Sanicula laciniata), leafy bent grass 

(Agrostis pallens), and spindly forms of 

bush monkey flower (Mimulus 

aurantiacus). In a habitat 

characterization of P. yadonii on the 

Monterey Peninsula, microsites 

occupied by P. yadonii had five times 

greater cover by other native geophytes 

(perennial plants with underground 

storage organs, such as bulbs, tubers, or 

corms), such as golden brodiaea (Tritelia 

ixiodes), blue dicks (Dichelostemma 

capitatum), and mariposa lilies 

(Calochortus spp.) than did microsites 

lacking P. yadonii. Where a maritime 

chaparral understory exists with 

scattered pines, P. yadonii occurs with 

other native herbs in gaps between the 

shrubs. It occurs in similar gaps 

associated with trails and fire roads in 

the Bishop pine-Gowen cypress forest 

stand within the Monterey pine forest 

on the Monterey Peninsula. It is not 

typically found in areas with a coast live 

oak canopy or those with high 

understory cover of shrubs or vines 

(EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 50–51, 62–

68). 

It is likely that in some areas the 

composition and cover of the Monterey 

pine herbaceous understory may remain 

relatively stable for decades due to 

abiotic factors (e.g., soils, hydrology); in 

others, these appropriate microhabitats 

may be ephemeral, disappearing as 

shrubs establish or increase in size and 

appearing elsewhere when understory 

fire; burrowing, trailing, and browsing 

animals; or shrub death, create new 

gaps. Areas should be of sufficient size 

to sustain the plant communities in 

which Piperia yadonii grows, given that 

climate change may eventually alter 

forest composition (and thus availability 

of filtered sunlight), available soil 

moisture, and mycorrhizal associates 

(Perry et al. 1990, pp. 266–274; Field et 

al. 1999, pp. 1–3; Noss 2001, pp. 581–

586). 

Although soils supporting native 

mycorrhizal symbionts are believed to 

be a requirement for successful growth 

in Piperia yadonii, this is not a habitat 

feature easily observable in the field or 

about which we have specific 

information. Therefore, we have not 

included it as a primary constituent 

element for P. yadonii, but assume that 

mycorrhizal associates will be 

represented in areas that encompass 

appropriate vegetation and soils. 

Piperia yadonii occupies soils that are 

primarily characterized as sands, fine 

sands, and sandy loams by the Soil 

Conservation Service mapping (United 

States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) 1978, maps; EcoSystems West 

2006, pp. 23–26). Soils where P. yadonii 

occurs in the Monterey pine forest are 

typically characterized as sands, rather 

than loams and, on the Monterey 

Peninsula, are frequently underlain by a 

claypan that is 1 to 5 feet (0.3 to 1.5 m) 

below the surface (USDA 1978, pp. 53–

54; Jones and Stokes Associates 1994b, 

pp. 16–21; EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 

23–26)). In a comparison of Monterey 

pine forest sites on and east of the 

Monterey Peninsula, P. yadonii was 

present in soils that tended to have 

lower organic matter, lower nutrient 

levels, and lower summer soil moisture 

levels than areas where it was absent 

(EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 43, 59–61). 

It is not known if P. yadonii actually 

prefers nutrient-poor soils or if it is 

unable to compete with the denser 

understory vegetation found on more 

nutrient-rich soils. The presence of P. 

yadonii is correlated with the drier of 

the forest soils. It is not found in 

riparian areas or wetlands on the 

Monterey Peninsula (Allen, 

unpaginated; EcoSystems West 2006, 

pp. 59–61, 64–65). 

In the maritime chaparral at its 

northern distributional limit, Piperia 

yadonii occurs on ridges supporting 

shallow, weathered, sandy soils with 

sandstone outcrops, where shrubs are 

small-statured (USDA 1978, pp. 10–11; 

Allen 1996 unpaginated; Graff 2006, p. 

4). The average shrub canopy height in 

areas where P. yadonii occurs on these 

ridges is about 6 inches, according to 

preliminary sampling (Graff 2006, pp 5–

6). Soils in this region are typically 

derived from weathered marine 

deposits. These sites often support 

cryptogamic soil crusts (soil surface 

communities primarily composed of 

cyanobacteria, lichens, mosses, and 

algae) (Graff 2006, p. 4). Cryptogamic 

crusts have been found to increase 

nutrient availability to plants, reduce 

erosion, improve plant-water relations, 

and provide germination and seedling 

growth sites (USDA 1997, pp. 8–11). 

Pollinators 

Piperia yadonii also requires 

pollinators for the production of viable 

seeds (PCE 2) (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 

15). Size and configuration of plant 

populations, and associated flowering 

species, may influence the degree to 

which pollinators are attracted to an 

area (Sipes and Tepedino 1995, p. 937). 

The abundance of pollinators may affect 

reproductive success and persistence of 

small plant populations (Groom 1998, 

pp. 487–495). As a group, the 

reproductive output of orchids is 

limited by pollinator availability or 

activity (Tremblay et al. 2005, p. 24), 

and P. yadonii had reduced seed set 

under natural pollination as compared 

to manual pollination (Doak and Graff 

2001, p. 12–13), an indication that seed 

set in this species may be pollinator 

limited. When populations of flowering 

individuals are small or flowering is 

restricted to a specific season, the 

individual plant population may not be 

able to sustain a population of insect 

pollinators by itself (Groom 1998, pp. 

493–495); therefore, habitats that 

support a variety of other flowering 

plant species that provide nectar and 

pollen sources throughout spring and 

summer for pollinator populations are 

likely needed to sustain P. yadonii 

populations. 

Doak and Graff (2001, p. 13) found 

that pollinators of Piperia yadonii are 

predominantly nocturnal, short-tongued 

moths (e.g., in the families Pyralidae, 

Geometridae, Noctuidae, Pterophoridae) 

that are most active between the hours 

of 8:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Some of 

these pollinator species (e.g., Agrotis 

ipsilon, Udea profundalis) are 

generalists regarding larval host plants, 

but others (e.g., Elpiste marcescaria, 

Drepanulatrix baueraia) feed on specific 

host plants in the larval stage (e.g., 

coyote bush, wild lilac, respectively). 

Piperia yadonii exists within several 

plant communities that sustain insect 

pollinators. They do so by supporting 

those flowering plant species needed by 

pollinators as larval hosts or nectar 

sources (e.g., coyotebush, wild lilac, and 

species in the mint family). 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Piperia yadonii 

Pursuant to our regulations, we are 

required to identify the known physical 

or biological features (Primary 

Constituent Elements; PCEs, laid out in 

sufficient quantity and appropriate 

spatial arrangement for conservation) 

essential to the conservation of Piperia 

yadonii. All areas being designated as 

critical habitat for P. yadonii are 

occupied, within the species’ historic 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60419 

geographic range, and contain sufficient 

PCEs to support life history functions 

for this species. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the species and the requirements of the 

habitat to sustain the essential life 

history functions of the species, we have 

determined that the Piperia yadonii 

PCEs are: 

1. A vegetation structure providing 

filtered sunlight on sandy soils: 

a. Coastal pine forest (primarily 

Monterey pine) with a canopy cover of 

20 to 70 percent, and a sparse 

herbaceous understory on Baywood 

sands, Narlon loamy fine sands, 

Sheridan coarse sandy loams, Tangair 

fine sands, Santa Lucia shaly clay loams 

and Chamise shaley clay loams 

underlain by a hardpan; or 

b. Maritime chaparral ridges with 

dwarfed shrubs (primarily Hooker’s 

manzanita) on Reliz shaly clay loams, 

Sheridan sandy loams, Narlon sandy 

loams, Arnold loamy sands and soils in 

the Junipero–Sur complex, Rock 

Outcrop–Xerorthents Association, and 

Arnold–Santa Ynez complex often 

underlain by rock outcroppings. 

2. Presence of nocturnal, shorttongued moths in the families Pyralidae, 

Geometridae, Noctuidae, and 

Pterophoridae. 

This designation is designed for the 

conservation of areas supporting the 

PCEs necessary to support the life 

history functions that were the basis for 

the proposal. In general, critical habitat 

units are designated based on sufficient 

PCEs being present to support one or 

more of the species’ life history 

functions. Each area designated in this 

rule has been determined to contain 

sufficient PCEs to provide for one or 

more of the life history functions of P. 

yadonii. Because not all life history 

functions require all the PCEs, not all 

critical habitat will uniformly contain 

all the PCEs. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we used the best scientific data 

available in determining areas that 

contain features that are essential to the 

conservation of Piperia yadonii. This 

includes information from the final 

listing rule; data from research and 

survey observations published in 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 designating as critical habitat 

any areas outside the geographical area 

presently occupied by the species. 

We have also reviewed available 

information that pertains to the ecology, 

life history, and habitat requirements of 

this species. This material included 

information and data in peer-reviewed 

articles, reports of monitoring and 

habitat characterizations, reports 

submitted during section 7 

consultations, our recovery plan, and 

information received from local species 

experts. 

We are designating critical habitat on 

lands within the geographic area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing that continues to be occupied to 

date. All critical habitat units contain 

habitat with features essential to the 

conservation of Piperia yadonii. We did 

not designate any units that are 

unoccupied. 

We used a multi-step process to 

identify and delineate critical habitat 

units. First, we mapped and reviewed 

all known occurrences of Piperia 

yadonii, using the best available 

information. To be meaningful for the 

purposes of determining critical habitat 

units, survey information had to be 

evaluated in light of the species’ life 

history. Not all individuals produce 

leaves or flower every year. A belowground P. yadonii tuber can do one of 

four things in any given year: Die, 

remain dormant, send up leaves but not 

flower, or leaf out and flower (Graff 

2006, pp. 7 and 8). The length of tuber 

dormancy is not known, but may be 

from 1 to 4 years based upon data from 

other orchid species with a similar life 

history. The P. yadonii flower is 

diagnostic (with regard to other Piperia 

species), and the proportion of 

vegetative plants that flower in any 

given year has been estimated to be from 

0.4 percent to 22 percent (Graff 2006, p. 

8), with the lowest estimates coming 

from those in the chaparral community. 

Thus it is difficult to precisely 

determine the extent and abundance of 

the species both within individual 

occurrences and throughout its 

geographic range. Because a positive 

identification requires a flowering 

individual, we did not include any 

occurrences in the designation that had 

not been identified during the flowering 

season as P. yadonii. 

Occurrence information included the 

results of several different types of 

surveys for the species in various 

locations within its range. Allen (1996, 

unpaginated) conducted a twoconsecutive-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 

formulating their Del Monte Forest 

Preservation and Development Plan. 

Next, we evaluated which occupied 

areas were most likely to contribute to 

the long-term persistence of the species. 

We focused on locations with larger 

occurrences in larger areas of 

contiguous native habitat (greater than 5 

acres (2 ha), see below) that are more 

likely to support intact ecosystem 

processes and biotic assemblages, 

provide areas for population growth, 

and opportunities for colonization of 

adjacent areas. These areas also have the 

highest likelihood of persisting through 

the environmental extremes that 

characterize California’s climate and of 

retaining the genetic variability to 

withstand future introduced stressors 

(e.g., new diseases, pathogens, or 

climate change). We believe that areas 

less than 5 acres in size that are 

surrounded by high-density 

development (e.g., office parks, 

residential neighborhoods, commercial 

buildings, and parking lots) and have 

become isolated as a result of 

development may contribute to the 

conservation of the species through 

educational, research, and other 

mechanisms, but overall have a lower 

potential for long-term preservation and 

lesser conservation value to the species. 

Therefore, we do not believe these areas 

have the features essential to the 

conservation of the species and thus we 

did not further consider these areas in 

the designation. Although we have not 

included these areas within the critical 

habitat designation, because they are 

occupied they may still receive 

protection under other provisions of the 

Act. 

We then selected sites from among the 

data set resulting from the above 

evaluation that contain the features 

essential to the conservation of Piperia 

yadonii, and may require special 

management considerations or 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60420 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

protection. These areas result in a 

designation that: (a) Represents the 

geographic range of the species; (b) 

captures peripheral populations; (c) 

includes the range of plant communities 

and soil types in which P. yadonii is 

found; (d) encompasses the elevation 

range over which the species occurs; 

and (e) maintains the connectivity of 

occurrences that grow on continuous 

ridgelines. 

Species and plant communities that 

are protected across their ranges are 

expected to have lower likelihoods of 

extinction (Soule and Simberloff 1986; 

Scott et al. 2001, pp.1297–1300); 

therefore, essential habitat should 

include multiple locations across the 

entire range of the species to prevent 

range collapse. Protecting peripheral or 

isolated populations is highly desirable 

because they may contain genetic 

variation not found in core populations. 

The genetic variation results from the 

effects of population isolation and 

adaptation to locally distinct 

environments (Lesica and Allendorf 

1995, pp. 754–757; Fraser 2000, pp. 49–

51; Hamrick and Godt, pp. 291–295). 

We also sought to include the range of 

plant communities, soil types, and 

elevational gradients in which Piperia 

yadonii is found to preserve the genetic 

variation that may result from 

adaptation to local environmental 

conditions, as documented in other 

plant species (e.g., see Hamrick and 

Godt pp. 299–301; Millar and Libby 

1991 pp. 150, 152–155). Finally, habitat 

fragmentation can result in loss of 

genetic variation (Young et al. 1996, pp. 

413–417); therefore, we sought to 

maintain connectivity between patches 

of plants distributed along ridgetops. 

In determining the extent of lands 

necessary to ensure the conservation 

and persistence of this species, we 

identified all areas that contain PCEs 

and are either already protected, 

managed, or otherwise unencumbered 

by conflicting use (e.g., undeveloped 

County or City parks, proposed 

preservation areas). These populations 

are most likely to persist into the future 

and to contribute to the species’ survival 

and recovery. We added ownership 

categories to the designation in the 

following manner: First we included 

undeveloped Federal and State lands, 

then local agency and private lands with 

recognized resource conservation 

emphasis (e.g., lands owned by a 

conservation-oriented organization, 

undeveloped County or City parks), and 

finally other agency and private lands. 

As a result of the above process, we 

did not include all occupied areas in the 

critical habitat designation. About 13 

occurrences or parts of occurrences, 

beyond those in the Pebble Beach 

Company’s proposed development 

areas, are known to the Service and are 

not included in the critical habitat 

designation: Two of these are in the 

Elkhorn–Prunedale area, 10 are on the 

Monterey Peninsula or interior of the 

Monterey Peninsula, and one is in the 

Point Lobos Ranch area. These 

occurrences were not included in the 

designation due to the above-discussed 

reasons of small size, lack of 

surrounding native or appropriate 

habitat, or because we lacked evidence 

that Piperia yadonii are extant or 

accurately identified in those areas. 

Mapping 

To map the units of critical habitat, 

we overlaid Piperia yadonii records on 

soil series data, topographic contours 

and, where available, vegetation data 

(e.g., maritime chaparral mapped by 

Van Dyke and Holl (2003)). Although P. 

yadonii occurs predominately on soils 

with a substantial sand component (e.g., 

Arnold and Narlon series), the mapped 

distribution of such soils extends well 

beyond the species’ range. Piperia 

yadonii also frequently occurs in areas 

of relatively low relief (typically less 

than 30 percent slope) along ridgetops 

or in patches of low relief amid steeper 

slopes. Using digital elevation data, we 

mapped the distribution of P. yadonii 

relative to areas with low relief and 

found that topographic relief, when 

combined with soils and plant 

community data, is a more accurate 

predictor of the species’ distribution. 

Therefore, as a first step, we tailored 

unit boundaries using geomorphologic 

features, vegetation data, and soil series 

data. 

In areas dominated by maritime 

chaparral, such as the 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 

Piperia yadonii occurrences. We also 

used landscape features such as streams, 

roads, and developed areas to delineate 

unit boundaries on appropriate soils. 

Using the above criteria we identified 

eight units that contain features 

essential to the conservation of Piperia 

yadonii: Three units are in north 

Monterey County in the ElkhornPrunedale area; one is on the Monterey 

Peninsula; two units are interior from 

the Monterey Peninsula; one unit is at 

Point Lobos Ranch; and the most 

southerly unit is near Palo Colorado 

Canyon. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

avoid including within the boundaries 

of the maps contained within this rule 

developed areas, tilled fields, row crops, 

golf course turfgrass, buildings, paved 

areas, and other areas that lack PCEs for 

Piperia yadonii. The scale of the maps 

prepared under the parameters for 

publication within the Code of Federal 

Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of all such developed areas. 

Any such structures and the land under 

them inadvertently left inside critical 

habitat boundaries shown on the maps 

of this designation have been excluded 

by text in the rule and are not included 

in the designation as critical habitat. 

Therefore, Federal actions limited to 

these structures and underlying lands 

would not trigger section 7 consultation, 

unless they affect the species and/or 

primary constituent elements in 

adjacent critical habitat. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60421 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the occupied areas 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. Many of 

the known occurrences of Piperia 

yadonii are threatened by one or a 

combination of the following: habitat 

fragmentation or loss due to residential, 

commercial, or recreational 

development; competition with 

nonnative plants for light, space, or 

water; deer and rabbit herbivory; 

vegetation cutting for fire prevention; 

changes in light, space, and soil 

moisture availability due to loss or 

alteration of adjacent vegetation or 

forest canopy; changes in fecundity 

(number and viability of offspring) or 

genetic variability resulting from loss 

and fragmentation of populations or 

potentially low pollinator abundance or 

activity; disease; and trampling (PCE 1, 

PCE 2). In maritime chaparral 

associations of the Prunedale-Elkhorn 

region where fire has not occurred in 

many decades, shrub diversity appears 

to be declining as coast live oak or largecanopied manzanitas become dominant 

(Van Dyke et al. 2001, pp. 225–227). 

This conversion may be slow in the 

shallow ridgetop soils where P. yadonii 

occurs, but increasing development 

surrounding these ridgetops reduces the 

opportunity to use fire as a management 

tool should it be deemed necessary to 

maintain the open, low-canopy 

conditions of P. yadonii’s preferred 

habitat (PCE 1). These threats may 

require special management and are 

addressed under the critical habitat unit 

descriptions below. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating eight units as 

critical habitat for Piperia yadonii. The 

critical habitat areas described below 

constitute our best assessment currently 

of areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat for Piperia yadonii. Table 

1, below, identifies the approximate 

area exempt from critical habitat for P. 

yadonii pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of 

the Act. Exemptions are discussed later 

in this rule under the section 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) and 

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

Act. Table 2, below, identifies units that 

we reduced in size between the 

proposed and final rules. 

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

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4(A)(3) OF THE ACT

Location (Unit) 

Size of area meeting the 

definition of critical habitat 

(Acres/Hectares) 

Size of exemption area 

(Acres/Hectares) 

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

TABLE 2.—REDUCTIONS IN THE UNIT SIZE BY TYPE OF LAND BETWEEN THE PROPOSED AND FINAL RULE

[Only the unit that was reduced is shown. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries in ac (ha).] 

Critical habitat unit and subunit State Local 

agency Private Total reduction 

Unit 4: Aguajito ............................................................................................................ 0 0 49 (20 ) 49 (20 ) 

Subunit 4a ............................................................................................................ 0 0 28 (11 ) 28 (11 ) 

Subunit 4b ............................................................................................................ 0 0 21 (9) 21 (9 ) 

Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula ......................................................................................... 0 0 139 (57 ) 139 (57 ) 

Subunit 6a ............................................................................................................ 0 0 95 (38 ) 95 (38 ) 

Subunit 6b ............................................................................................................ 0 0 3 (1 ) 3 (1 ) 

Subunit 6c ............................................................................................................. 0 0 39 (16 ) 39 (16 ) 

Subunit 6d ............................................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Subunit 6e ............................................................................................................ 0 0 2 (1 ) 2 (1 ) 

Total ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................... 189 (75 ) 

The approximate area encompassed 

within each designated critical habitat 

unit is shown in table 3. 

TABLE 3.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR PIPERIA YADONII BY TYPE OF LAND OWNERSHIP

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

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 .......................................................... ...................... ...................... .......................... .......................... 497 (201 ) 

subunit 2a ....................................................................... 0 0 231 (93 ) 0 231 (93 ) 

subunit 2b ....................................................................... 0 0 0 83 (34 ) 83 (34 ) 

subunit 2c ....................................................................... 0 183 (74 ) 0 0 183 (74 ) 

Unit 3: Vierra Canyon ............................................................ ...................... ...................... .......................... .......................... 50 (20 ) 

subunit 3a ....................................................................... 0 0 0 17 (7 ) 17 (7 ) 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60422 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR PIPERIA YADONII BY TYPE OF LAND OWNERSHIP—Continued 

[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) 

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

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

Unit 4: Aguajito ...................................................................... ...................... ...................... .......................... .......................... 108 (44 ) 

subunit 4a ....................................................................... 0 0 0 49 (20 ) 49 (20 ) 

subunit 4b ....................................................................... 0 0 0 59 (24 ) 59 (24 ) 

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

Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula ................................................... ...................... ...................... .......................... .......................... 920 (372 ) 

subunit 6a ....................................................................... 0 0 435 (176 ) 375 (152 ) 810 (328 ) 

subunit 6b ....................................................................... 0 0 0 6 (2 ) 6 (2 ) 

subunit 6c ....................................................................... 0 0 23 (9 ) 8 (3 ) 31 (13 ) 

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

subunit 6e ....................................................................... 0 19 (8 ) 29 (12 ) 13 (5 ) 61 (25 ) 

Unit 7: Point Lobos ................................................................ 228 (93 ) 0 97 (39 ) 0 325 (131 ) 

Unit 8: Palo Colorado ............................................................ 0 0 0 73 (29 ) 73 (29 ) 

Total ......................................................................... 261 (105 ) 202 (81 ) 955 (387 ) 699 (283 ) 2117 (857 ) 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for Piperia 

yadonii, below. 

Unit 1: Blohm Ranch 

Unit 1 consists of 128 ac (52 ha) of 

private lands in northern Monterey 

County in the Elkhorn Slough 

watershed. It is divided into two 

ridgeline subunits, separated by 

intervening agricultural fields. The two 

subunits support similar plant 

communities and need similar types of 

special management considerations or 

protection; therefore, we discuss them 

as a unit, except to define land 

ownership or acreage. Unit 1 was 

occupied at the time of listing (Service 

1998) and is currently occupied. It 

supports one of the two largest 

occurrences of Piperia yadonii plants in 

the Prunedale Elkhorn area (several 

thousand plants (Allen 1996 

unpaginated)) and the northernmost 

occurrences in the known range of the 

species. This unit contains features that 

are essential for the conservation of P. 

yadonii, including soils from weathered 

marine sediments that are classified as 

an Arnold Santa Ynez complex on the 

ridgetops and as Arnold series soils on 

the slopes (PCE 1). Vegetation is 

primarily high quality maritime 

chaparral, with ridgetops dominated by 

low-growing Hooker’s manzanita. This 

unit provides habitat that supports 

germination, growth, and reproduction 

of P. yadonii. It contains ridgetop 

habitat openings, between and among 

patches of P. yadonii, to allow for 

population expansion and for shifts in 

population location, should 

successional vegetation or other changes 

occur that alter microhabitat conditions. 

Features essential to the conservation of 

P. yadonii in this unit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection due to: the growth and 

spread of invasive plant species (such as 

jubata grass); erosion from old roadbeds 

or past earth-moving activities; and 

herbivory (PCE 1, PCE 2). Herbivory of 

flowering stalks was 36 percent in 1999, 

although predators (mountain lion 

(Puma concolor)) of herbivores were 

recently sighted on these lands (Doak 

and Graff 2001, p. 28; Graff 2006, 

Appendix IV). Given that pollen 

deposition rates and seed production 

were low for the one site studied in this 

unit, special management may also be 

needed to ensure that the abundance of 

potential pollinators, such as moths or 

bees, are maintained or enhanced PCE 

2). 

Subunit 1a: This subunit consists of 

72 ac (29 ha) of private land owned by 

the Elkhorn Slough Foundation and The 

Nature Conservancy. Although 

restoration and removal of nonnative 

invasive plant populations are ongoing, 

a management plan specifically 

addressing Piperia yadonii on properties 

owned by the Elkhorn Slough 

Foundation and The Nature 

Conservancy has not yet been developed 

(Hayes 2006). 

Subunit 1b: This subunit consists of 

56 ac (23 ha) of land owned by The 

Nature Conservancy and managed by 

the Elkhorn Slough Foundation, or 

owned and managed by the Elkhorn 

Slough Foundation. A management plan 

specifically addressing Piperia yadonii 

has not yet been developed. 

Unit 2: Manzanita Park 

Unit 2 consists of 498 ac (201 ha) of 

Monterey County lands north of 

Prunedale. It is divided into 3 subunits 

that support similar soils and vegetation 

communities and need similar types of 

special management considerations or 

protection; therefore, we discuss these 

characteristics for the whole unit. Unit 

2 was occupied at the time of listing 

(Service 1998) and is currently 

occupied. The lands in this unit support 

several thousand Piperia yadonii plants 

scattered along the ridges, separated by 

intervening lower-elevation areas of oak 

woodland, farmed lands, and residential 

development (Allen 1996 unpaginated; 

Environmental Science Associates 2003; 

CNDDB 2005; Graff 2006 appendix IV). 

This unit contains features that are 

essential for the conservation of P. 

yadonii, including soils from weathered 

marine sediments that are classified as 

an Arnold–Santa Ynez complex on the 

ridgetops and as Arnold series soils on 

the slopes and on more undulating 

topography within Manzanita County 

Park (PCE 1). Vegetation within the 

subunits is primarily maritime 

chaparral, with some coast live oak 

woodland at the lower elevations. The 

ridgetops are dominated by low-growing 

Hooker’s manzanita. This unit contains 

the PCEs for P. yadonii that promote 

germination, growth, and reproduction 

(PCE 1). This unit encompasses a cluster 

of three ridgelines primarily oriented 

east-west that rise in elevation from 

west to east, which support P. yadonii 

and which may be close enough for 

genetic exchange via wind-dispersed 

seed. In conjunction with the Blohm 

Ranch unit (Unit 1), this unit 

encompasses the majority of the P. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60423 

yadonii plants known in the northern 

half of the range of P. yadonii. The 

ridgetop habitat openings, between and 

among patches of P. yadonii, allow for 

population expansion and for shifts in 

population location, should 

successional vegetation or other changes 

occur that alter microhabitat conditions. 

This unit is the central of the three in 

the Elkhorn Prunedale geographic area. 

This unit supports one of the two largest 

occurrences in the species’ northern 

range, and the subunits of Unit 2 

include the largest occupied ridgelines 

relatively unfragmented by residential 

development in the heart of the species’

northern distribution. Due to their 

relatively unfragmented condition, 

lands in this unit may support dormant 

plants among the patches of currently 

known P. yadonii. Features in this unit 

may require special management 

considerations or protection due to: the 

growth and spread of invasive plant 

species, such as jubata grass, French 

broom, and eucalyptus; elimination or 

further fragmentation of habitat from 

residential, recreational, or agricultural 

development; vegetation removal for 

fuel reduction purposes; disease; and 

herbivory (PCE 1, PCE 2). Habitat with 

features essential to the conservation of 

P. yadonii in this unit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to ensure the abundance of 

potential pollinators, such as moths or 

bees, are maintained or enhanced, to 

ensure the production of sufficient 

viable seed (PCE 2). 

Subunit 2a: This subunit consists of 

231 ac (93 ha) of land owned and 

managed by the Elkhorn Slough 

Foundation. 

Subunit 2b: This subunit consists of 

83 ac (34 ha) of private lands. Some of 

the lands in this subunit were proposed 

for a 10-lot subdivision, residential 

development, and open space 

designation in 2000 (Mercurio 2000, p. 

2); this project may be moving forward 

in the near future (Schubert 2006). 

Subunit 2c: This subunit consists of 

183 ac (74 ha) within Manzanita County 

Park, owned and managed by the 

County of Monterey. Part of the park has 

been developed into a sports complex 

and is not part of the designation. A 

portion of the park within the unit is 

used for hiking and equestrian use. 

Although volunteers have recently 

begun removing nonnative invasive 

plants from the park, we are not aware 

of the existence of any management 

plan that specifically addresses Piperia 

yadonii on properties owned by 

Monterey County. 

Unit 3: Vierra Canyon 

Unit 3 consists of 50 ac (20 ha) 

consisting primarily of State lands in 

northern Monterey County north of 

Prunedale. It is divided into 3 subunits 

with similarities in vegetation and 

special management considerations or 

protection needs. Unit 3 was occupied 

at the time of listing (Service 1998) and 

is currently occupied (Childs 2004). The 

easternmost Piperia yadonii occurrences 

in unit 3 (subunits 3b and 3c) are 

reported to be small, with fewer than 10 

flowering individuals; this likely 

represents up to several hundred 

individuals, based on the observed 

proportion of flowering to vegetative 

individuals (Doak and Graff 2001). This 

unit contains features that are essential 

for the conservation of P. yadonii, 

including the following: Lands in this 

unit support soils from weathered 

marine sediments that are classified as 

an Arnold-Santa Ynez complex on the 

ridgetops and the Arnold series on the 

slopes (PCE 1). Vegetation is primarily 

maritime chaparral, with coast live oak 

woodland in the lower elevation areas. 

The ridgetops are dominated by lowgrowing Hooker’s manzanita. Analysis 

of aerial photographs suggests that 

chaparral vegetation on the ridgetops in 

this region maintains a more open 

canopy than in areas to the west, in the 

areas of Units 1 and 2 (Van Dyke 2006). 

Therefore, these areas may support 

openings that are more persistent, and 

can be occupied by P. yadonii for a 

longer time, than areas to the west, even 

in the absence of fire (Van Dyke 2006). 

The lands surrounding these subunits 

are more extensively developed for 

residential use than are those to the 

west, severing the once continuous 

maritime chaparral that dominated the 

ridges. Consequently the subunits are 

smaller and lack the additional habitat 

for population expansion found in the 

other northern units. This unit contains 

the PCEs for P. yadonii that promote 

germination, growth, and reproduction. 

It supports the easternmost occurrences 

of P. yadonii in the Elkhorn’Prunedale 

region, on the northeast periphery of the 

species’ range. Features essential to the 

conservation of P. yadonii in this unit 

may require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

elimination or further fragmentation of 

habitat from development, grading or 

other vegetation removal (e.g., for fuel 

reduction purposes or roads), and the 

spread of invasive plant species (PCE 1, 

PCE 2). 

Subunit 3a: This subunit consists of 

17 ac (7 ha) of private lands that are 

overlain by a Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company easement. The occurrence in 

this subunit is the largest documented 

in Unit 3, numbering several thousand 

plants (Childs 2004). 

Subunit 3b: This subunit consists of 

12 ac (5 ha) of State lands (California 

Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans)). The lands in this subunit 

and in subunit 3c were part of a 

previous study area for a highway 

alignment. This alignment was 

eventually excluded from further 

consideration and the State retains the 

lands (Robison 2006). We are not aware 

of any management plan that addresses 

Piperia yadonii on these State 

properties. 

Subunit 3c: This subunit consists of 

21 ac (8 ha) of State lands, owned by 

Caltrans. 

Unit 4: Aguajito 

Unit 4 consists of 108 ac (44 ha) of 

private land east of the Monterey 

Peninsula and north of Jack’s Peak 

County Park. It is divided into 2 

subunits separated by lower elevation 

lands. Unit 4 was occupied at the time 

of listing (Service 1998) and is currently 

occupied. Piperia yadonii occurs in 

these subunits on ridgetops, where it 

grows with Hooker’s manzanita 

(EcoSystems West 2006, p. 61). This 

unit contains features that are essential 

for the conservation of P. yadonii, 

including the following: Soils in this 

unit are classified as the Santa LuciaReliz Association, where Reliz series 

soils occur on the ridgetops and Santa 

Lucia series soils on surrounding slopes 

(PCE 1). Reliz series soils are 

characterized as excessively drained 

shaley clay loams underlain by shale or 

sandstone (USDA 1978, p. 64). The 

vegetation in the unit is a mix of 

Monterey pine forest and maritime 

chaparral. Griffin (1978, p. 69) 

commented that this area was one of the 

only ones in the Monterey Bay area 

where maritime chaparral grows on 

shale. He also noted that sandstones 

exist within the shale beds and produce 

sandy loam soils. A related species, 

Piperia elegans, is more abundant in the 

surrounding Monterey pine forest 

(EcoSystems West 2005b, p. 7). This 

unit provides habitat that supports 

germination, growth, and reproduction. 

Unit 4 represents one of only two units 

in the region interior to the Monterey 

Peninsula. It supports the largest 

undeveloped easternmost occurrence of 

P. yadonii in the central and southern 

half of the species’ range. Its 

preservation will help avoid range 

collapse. Features essential to the 

conservation of P. yadonii in this unit 

may require special management 

considerations or protection due to 

fragmentation of habitat from 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60424 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

development and the colonization and 

spread of invasive plant species (PCE 1, 

PCE 2). We are also excluding 49 acres 

(20 ha) from this subunit as a result of 

the Pebble Beach Company’s 

conservation agreement. 

Subunit 4a: This subunit consists of 

49 ac (20 ha) of private lands (owned by 

the Pebble Beach Company). Lands in 

and/or adjacent to this subunit and 

subunit 4b are proposed for preservation 

in the Pebble Beach Company’s recent 

development plan, but the configuration 

of the preservation areas is not yet 

determined (Monterey County 2005, pp. 

2–89, 2–90). 

Subunit 4b: This subunit consists of 

56 ac (24 ha) of private lands (owned by 

the Pebble Beach Company) and 

proposed for preservation (see above), 

and 3 ac (1ha) of Monterey County road 

right-of-way. 

Unit 5: Old Capitol 

Unit 5 consists of 16 ac (7 ha) of 

private land (owned by the Pebble 

Beach Company) east of the Monterey 

Peninsula. Unit 5 was occupied at the 

time of listing (Service 1998) and is 

currently occupied. Surveys in 2005 

revealed that the dominant Piperia 

species at this location is P. elegans, 

which number in the thousands; 

however, several hundred P. yadonii cooccur with P. elegans throughout the 

unit (EcoSystems West 2005b, pp. 5–7). 

This unit contains features that are 

essential for the conservation of P. 

yadonii, including the Chamise shaley 

clay loam (PCE 1) soil type. The 

vegetation is Monterey pine forest and 

coast live oak woodland. This unit 

provides habitat that supports 

germination, growth, and reproduction 

of P. yadonii. It is the only unit 

designated between the Monterey 

Peninsula (Unit 6) and Aguajito (Unit 4) 

to the east and, therefore, provides 

connectivity between these other two 

units. 

Features essential to the conservation 

of P. yadonii may require special 

management considerations or 

protection in this unit due to: 

Fragmentation or loss of habitat from 

development, habitat degradation by 

motorized vehicles and encampments, 

debris dumping, and competition from 

nonnative invasive plants (PCE 1, PCE 

2). The land in Unit 5 is proposed for 

preservation in the Pebble Beach 

Company’s recent development plan 

(Monterey County 2005, pp. 2–89, 2–

90). 

Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula 

Unit 6 consists of 920 ac (372 ha) of 

private and City lands on the Monterey 

Peninsula. This unit is divided into 5 

subunits due to intervening 

development. Most of the lands 

surrounding this unit are developed for 

residential and recreational (golf) use. 

The similarities among the subunits in 

soils and vegetation community are 

discussed here; subunit specific details 

are discussed below. Unit 6 was 

occupied at the time of listing (Service 

1998) and is currently occupied. It 

supports the greatest abundance and 

largest aerial extent of Piperia yadonii in 

the species’ range, with close to 100,000 

vegetative plants (Zander Associates 

and WWD Corporation 2004, all pp.; 

EcoSystems West 2004, pp. 1–9; 

EcoSystems West 2005a, 2005b, all pp.). 

This unit contains features that are 

essential for the conservation of P. 

yadonii including sands or sandy loam 

soils that belong to at least 5 soil series 

on the Monterey Peninsula unit 

(Baywood sands, Narlon loamy fine 

sands, Sheridan coarse sandy loams, 

Tangair fine sands, and Santa Lucia 

shaley clay loam). Vegetation in this 

unit is primarily Monterey pine forest, 

with maritime chaparral, and Bishop 

pine/Gowen cypress forest in two 

subunits (PCE 1). Pollinator 

observations and collections were made 

on lands in this unit (PCE 2) (Doak and 

Graff 2001). This unit provides habitat 

that supports germination, growth, 

reproduction, and space for shifts in the 

location of P. yadonii, as microhabitat 

conditions change. Features essential to 

the conservation of P. yadonii may 

require special management in this unit 

due to: Adverse effects from adjacent 

existing and future development, 

including the loss of adjacent forest 

canopy, increased trampling, potential 

hydrologic changes, overspray of 

pesticides, the introduction of 

pathogens or disease, mowing, and the 

introduction and spread of invasive 

plant species; continuing high and/or 

increasing deer populations resulting in 

high herbivory levels; and increased 

growth of understory vegetation due to 

exclusion of wildfire (PCE 1, PCE 2). 

Subunit 6a: This subunit consists of 

810 ac (328 ha) of private lands owned 

by the Pebble Beach Company and other 

private owners, including 17 ac (7 ha) 

owned by the Del Monte Forest 

Foundation (DMFF). Protected lands in 

this subunit include the SFB Morse 

Botanical Reserve (owned by the DMFF) 

and the Huckleberry Hill Natural 

Reserve (easement held by the DMFF). 

It also includes lands identified in the 

Pebble Beach Company’s most recent 

development proposal for preservation 

or conservation: Areas PQR, G, H, I, the 

Corporate Yard Preservation Area, and 

Area D (Monterey County 2005). The 

Department of the Army’s Presidio of 

Monterey is contiguous with the 

northeastern edge of this subunit; those 

lands are exempted from this 

designation, as described later in this 

rule. We have also excluded 54 acres (22 

ha) from this subunit as a result of the 

Pebble Beach Company’s conservation 

agreement and 6 ac (2.4 ha) from the 

Stevenson School property. We have 

also removed 35 acres (including Area 

D) because they do not support the 

PCEs. Please see the section 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Approved Management Plans—

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

Act and our responses to Comments 12 

and 13, for a discussion of these 

exclusions. 

Plant communities in the Huckleberry 

Hill Natural Area and SFB Morse 

Botanical Preserve are Gowen cypress/ 

Bishop pine forest, maritime chaparral, 

and Monterey pine forest. The 

remaining lands support primarily 

Monterey pine forest. Lands in this 

subunit support about 90,000 vegetative 

Piperia yadonii plants (Zander 

Associates and WWD Corporation 2004 

all pp.; EcoSystems West 2004, pp. 1–

9; EcoSystems West 2005a, 2005b, all 

pp.). Although the DMFF conducts 

some monitoring and removal of 

nonnative invasive plant populations, a 

management plan specifically 

addressing P. yadonii on properties 

owned by the DMFF has not been 

developed. 

Subunit 6b: This subunit consists of 6 

ac (2 ha) of private lands. It is identified 

in the Pebble Beach Company’s most 

recent development proposal as the 

Bristol Curve Conservation Area 

(Monterey County 2005 Fig. ES–2). This 

subunit is part of a larger area identified 

by the Pebble Beach Company as Area 

MNOUV, which supports about 116 ac 

(47 ha) of Monterey pine forest and one 

of the two largest known occurrences of 

Piperia yadonii (about 57,000 plants 

(Zander Associates and WWD 

Corporation 2004)). The Monterey pine 

forest of MNOUV outside the proposed 

Bristol Curve conservation area is 

proposed for development as a golf 

course (Monterey County 2005). 

Vegetation in this subunit is Monterey 

pine forest with an herbaceous 

understory. We are excluding 1 acre (1 

ha) from this subunit as a result of the 

Pebble Beach Company’s conservation 

agreement, and as a result of boundary 

adjustments, we have not included 2 

acres of proposed critical habitat within 

this subunit that do not support the 

PCEs. Please see the section 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Approved Management Plans—

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


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60425 

Act and our responses to Comments 12 

and 13, for a discussion of these 

exclusions. 

Subunit 6c: This subunit consists of 

31 ac (13 ha) of private lands, of which 

about 23 acres (9 ha) are owned by the 

DMFF. Lands within this unit are 

referred to as Indian Village (owned by 

the DMFF) and, in the Pebble Beach 

Company’s recent development 

proposal, as Conservation Area K and 

Preservation Areas J and L (Monterey 

County 2005 Fig. ES–2). Adjacent lands 

(Part of Area K) that are proposed for 

development are not included in this 

subunit. We are excluding 37 acres (15 

ha) from this subunit as a result of the 

Pebble Beach Company’s conservation 

agreement, and we have removed 2 

acres (1 ha) as a result of boundary 

adjustments to account for areas that do 

not support the PCEs. Please see the 

section Relationship of Critical Habitat 

to Approved Management Plans—

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

Act and our responses to Comments 12 

and 13, for a discussion of these 

exclusions. The vegetation in this 

subunit is primarily Monterey pine 

forest. This subunit supports several 

thousand Piperia yadonii plants (Zander 

Associates and WWD Corporation 

2004). Along with subunits 6b and 6d, 

it encompasses lands in the 

westernmost region of the Monterey 

Peninsula. 

Subunit 6d: This subunit consists of 

12 ac (5 ha) of private lands owned by 

the DMFF. It encompasses the Crocker 

Grove, an area of Monterey cypress 

forest with some adjacent Monterey 

pine forest (PCE 1). This is the 

westernmost subunit on the peninsula, 

closest to the ocean, and lands it occurs 

on are mapped as marine terrace 2 

(Jones and Stokes 1994b, p. 11). It has 

been documented to support about 50 

flowering Piperia yadonii plants (Van 

Dyke et. al. 2006), which typically 

equates to several hundred vegetative 

plants. 

Subunit 6e: This subunit consists of 

42 ac (17 ha) of private lands and 19 ac 

(7 (ha) owned by the City of Pacific 

Grove. About 29 ac (12 ha) of the private 

lands are owned by the DMFF. Lands 

within this unit are referred to as the 

Navajo tract and as Preservation Area B 

in the Pebble Beach Company’s most 

recent development proposal (Monterey 

County 2005 Fig. ES–2). We are 

excluding 2 acres (1 ha) from this 

subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach 

Company’s conservation agreement. 

Please see the section Relationship of 

Critical Habitat to Approved 

Management Plans—Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for a 

discussion of this exclusion. The 

vegetation in this subunit is a mix of 

coast live oak and Monterey pine forest 

(PCE 1). It is the northernmost unit we 

are designating on the Peninsula. It 

supports several hundred plants of 

Piperia yadonii (Zander Associates and 

WWD Corporation 2004). 

Unit 7: Point Lobos Ranch 

Unit 7 consists of 228 ac (92 ha) of 

State land south of the Monterey 

Peninsula on the Big Sur coast, and 97 

ac (39 ha) owned by the Big Sur Land 

Trust that are intended to be added to 

the State Parks system in the future. 

Unit 7 was occupied at the time of 

listing (Service 1998) and is currently 

occupied. The lands in this unit support 

several thousand Piperia yadonii plants 

(Graff et al. 2003, Nedeff et al. 2003). 

This unit contains features that are 

essential for the conservation of P. 

yadonii, including the sandy loam soils 

in the Sheridan, Narlon, Junipero Sur 

complex series, underlain by granitic 

substrates from which terrace sands 

have been eroded (Griffin 1978, p. 69, 

USDA 1978 map no. 35). Vegetation is 

a composite of Monterey pine forest, 

maritime chaparral, Gowen cypress 

Bishop pine forest, with some redwood 

forest. Piperia yadonii occurs in this 

unit in Monterey pine forest; on 

exposed granitic soils in maritime 

chaparral dominated by Hooker’s 

manzanita; and under a canopy of 

Monterey pine, Gowen cypress, and 

redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) (PCE 

1). This unit provides habitat that 

supports germination, growth, and 

reproduction of P. yadonii, as well as 

population expansion and shifts in 

population location. This unit supports 

P. yadonii growing on soils not found in 

other units and in association with a 

varied mix of forest tree species. This is 

the second highest unit in elevation and 

supports the largest occurrence of P. 

yadonii south of the Monterey 

Peninsula (Graff 2006). Features 

essential to the conservation of P. 

yadonii may require special 

management in this unit due to: the 

growth and spread of invasive plant 

species, such as French broom; loss of 

habitat from residential development; 

and erosion (PCE 1, PCE 2). Access by 

park visitors may need to be managed to 

avoid creation of trails in Monterey pine 

forest populations and use of herbicides 

should be controlled to avoid or 

minimize effects to P. yadonii (PCE 1). 

Unit 8: Palo Colorado 

Unit 8 consists of 73 ac (29 ha) of 

private land on the Big Sur coast. Unit 

8 was occupied at the time of listing 

(Service 1998) and is currently 

occupied. The lands in this unit were 

reported to support 38 flowering Piperia 

yadonii plants (Norman 1995), which 

likely represents a population of several 

hundred to several thousand vegetative 

individuals, based on the observed 

proportions of flowering to vegetative 

individuals (Doak and Graff 2001). This 

unit contains features that are essential 

for the conservation of P. yadonii 

including the following: A mix of sandy 

loam soils, shallow soils less than 20 

inches deep, and rock outcrops 

classified as the Junipero-Sur complex 

and Rock Outcrop—Xerorthents 

Association (PCE 1) (USDA 1978, p. 38). 

Vegetation in this unit has been 

described as a unique association of 

maritime chaparral, with low-growing 

hybrid Arctostaphylos glandulosa as the 

dominant manzanita under which P. 

yadonii occurs (Norman 1995). This 

unit provides habitat that supports 

germination, growth, and reproduction 

of P. yadonii. This unit supports the 

most southern and highest elevation 

(1,000 to 1,400 feet (300 to 430 m)) 

occurrence in the species’ range. 

Features essential to the conservation of 

P. yadonii may require special 

management in this unit due to habitat 

fragmentation and habitat degradation 

from road and trail grading and from 

future development, such as the 

introduction and spread of nonnative 

plants, removal of native vegetation, 

erosion, and hydrologic changes (PCE 1, 

PCE 2). 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Decisions by the Fifth and 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of adversely 

modify (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force 

v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 

3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club 

v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 

245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and 

we do not rely on this regulatory 

definition when analyzing whether an 

action is likely to destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Pursuant to the 

statutory provisions of the Act, 

destruction or adverse modification is 

determined on the basis of whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would remain functional (or 

retain the current ability for the primary 

constituent elements to be functionally 

established) to serve its intended 

conservation role for the species. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60426 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. This is a 

procedural requirement only. However, 

once a species proposed for listing 

becomes listed, or proposed critical 

habitat is designated as final, the full 

prohibitions of section 7(a)(2) apply to 

any Federal action. The primary utility 

of the conference procedures is to 

maximize the opportunity for a Federal 

agency to adequately consider species 

proposed for listing and critical habitat 

and avoid potential delays in 

implementing their proposed action 

because of the section 7(a)(2) 

compliance process, should those 

species be listed or the critical habitat 

designated. 

Under conference procedures, the 

Service may provide advisory 

conservation recommendations to assist 

the agency in eliminating conflicts that 

may be caused by the proposed action. 

The Service may conduct either 

informal or formal conferences. Informal 

conferences are typically used if the 

proposed action is not likely to have any 

adverse effects to the species proposed 

for listing or proposed critical habitat. 

Formal conferences are typically used 

when the Federal agency or the Service 

believes the proposed action is likely to 

cause adverse effects to species 

proposed for listing or critical habitat, 

inclusive of those that may cause 

jeopardy or adverse modification. 

The results of an informal conference 

are typically transmitted in a conference 

report, while the results of a formal 

conference are typically transmitted in a 

conference opinion. Conference 

opinions on proposed critical habitat are 

typically prepared according to 50 CFR 

402.14, as if the proposed critical 

habitat were designated. We may adopt 

the conference opinion as the biological 

opinion when the critical habitat is 

designated, if no substantial new 

information or changes in the action 

alter the content of the opinion (see 50 

CFR 402.10(d)). As noted above, any 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are strictly 

advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such a species or 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

(action agency) must enter into 

consultation with us. As a result of this 

consultation, compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be 

documented through the Service’s 

issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for 

Federal actions that may affect, but are 

not likely to adversely affect, listed 

species or critical habitat; or (2) a 

biological opinion for Federal actions 

that are likely to adversely affect listed 

species or critical habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in jeopardy to a listed species or 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. 

‘‘Reasonable and prudent alternatives’’

are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that can be implemented in 

a manner consistent with the intended 

purpose of the action, that are consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 

economically and technologically 

feasible, and that the Director believes 

would avoid jeopardy to the listed 

species or destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can 

vary from slight project modifications to 

extensive redesign or relocation of the 

project. Costs associated with 

implementing a reasonable and prudent 

alternative are similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where a new 

species is listed or critical habitat is 

subsequently designated that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action or such 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law. Consequently, some 

Federal agencies may request 

reinitiation of consultation with us on 

actions for which formal consultation 

has been completed, if those actions 

may affect subsequently listed species 

or designated critical habitat or 

adversely modify or destroy proposed 

critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect 

Piperia yadonii or its designated critical 

habitat require consultation under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Activities on 

State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

requiring a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the Corps under section 404 

of the Clean Water Act or a permit 

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from 

the Service) or involving some other 

Federal action (such as funding from the 

Federal Highway Administration, 

Federal Aviation Administration, or the 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency) will also be subject to the 

section 7 consultation process. Federal 

actions not affecting listed species or 

critical habitat, and actions on State, 

Tribal, local, or private lands that are 

not federally funded, authorized, or 

permitted, do not require section 7 

consultations. 

Application of the Adverse Modification 

Standard for Actions Involving Effects to 

the Critical Habitat of Piperia yadonii 

For the reasons described in the 

Director’s December 9, 2004, 

memorandum, the key factor related to 

the adverse modification determination 

is whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the 

primary constituent elements to be 

functionally established) to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the PCEs to an extent 

that the conservation value of critical 

habitat for Piperia yadonii is 

appreciably reduced. Generally, the 

conservation role of Piperia yadonii 

critical habitat units is to support viable 

core area populations. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and, 

therefore, should result in consultation 

for Piperia yadonii include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Actions that would remove or 

destroy Piperia yadonii plants or 

remove flowering stalks. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

grading, plowing, mowing, burning 

during the growing or flowering season, 

driving over plants, unrestricted 

creation of trails through occurrences, 

unrestricted mechanical weed control, 

and/or unlimited use of herbicides. 

(2) Actions that would increase the 

establishment and spread of invasive 

nonnative species in Piperia yadonii 

habitat or increase the invasability of 

the plant community within which P. 

yadonii occurs. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to: Grading; 

plowing; road building and 

maintenance; introducing seeds or other 

propagules of invasive species during 

erosion-control practices and/or 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60427 

landscaping practices; isolating habitat 

patches within a matrix of residential or 

other development; off road vehicle 

traffic; and/or livestock grazing. These 

activities could encourage the 

establishment and spread species such 

as French broom or jubata grass, which 

can compete with P. yadonii for light 

and other resources. 

(3) Actions that would directly 

remove or destroy the low-growing 

maritime chaparral and Monterey pine 

forest plant communities on which 

Piperia yadonii depends. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to: 

Road construction; grading; 

development; plowing; burning out-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 that increases 

impermeable surfaces. These activities 

could result in soils that do not retain 

sufficient moisture through the growing 

season, excessive irrigation that 

influences P. yadonii through altered 

water availability or indirectly through 

changes in associated vegetation, and 

changes in drainage patterns that 

influence soil saturation during the 

growing season. 

(6) Actions that would increase the 

abundance of herbivores (such as deer 

and rabbits) of Piperia yadonii leaves 

and flowers or encourage the spread and 

abundance of nonnative species that 

consume pollen (e.g., nonnative 

earwigs). Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to: Residential or 

commercial development that 

introduces landscaping that favors 

nonnative garden invertebrates but not 

their predators (e.g., lizards); and/or 

fencing that excludes predators, but not 

herbivores. These actions could result in 

increased levels of herbivory of P. 

yadonii leaves and flowers and 

correspondingly reduced levels of 

reproduction. 

(7) Actions that would diminish the 

variety or abundance of pollinators 

needed for seed set in Piperia yadonii. 

Such actions could include, but are not 

limited to: Removal of the native 

maritime chaparral and forest plant 

communities within which P. yadonii 

grows, night-lighting adjacent to areas 

supporting P. yadonii, and/or unlimited 

pesticide applications. These actions 

could indirectly reduce reproduction in 

P. yadonii through reduced pollen 

transfer and could alter gene flow 

between occurrences through changes in 

pollinator composition. 

All of the units designated as critical 

habitat, as well as that portion of one 

which has been exempted under section 

4(a)(3) of the Act contain features 

essential to the conservation of Piperia 

yadonii. All units are within the 

geographic range of the species and all 

units were occupied by the species at 

the time of listing and are occupied 

now. In some cases, the level of detail 

regarding the precise location of plants 

within the units was not documented 

until after the listing. Because all critical 

habitat units are occupied, Federal 

agencies already consult with us on 

activities in areas currently occupied by 

P. yadonii, or if the species may be 

affected by their actions, to ensure that 

their actions do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of P. yadonii. 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) and 

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

Act 

Section 4(a)(3) 

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete, by 

November 17, 2001, an Integrated 

Natural Resource Management Plan 

(INRMP). An INRMP integrates 

implementation of the military mission 

of the installation with stewardship of 

the natural resources found on the base. 

Each INRMP includes an assessment of 

the ecological needs on the installation, 

including the need to provide for the 

conservation of listed species; a 

statement of goals and priorities; a 

detailed description of management 

actions to be implemented to provide 

for these ecological needs; and a 

monitoring and adaptive management 

plan. Among other things, each INRMP 

must, to the extent appropriate and 

applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 

management, fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification, wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’

We consult with the military on the 

development and implementation of 

INRMPs for installations with listed 

species. INRMPs developed by military 

installations located within the range of 

the critical habitat designation for 

Piperia yadonii were analyzed for 

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

of the Act. 

Approved INRMPs 

The Presidio of Monterey (POM) has 

an INRMP and Endangered Species 

Management Plan (ESMP) in place that 

provides a benefit for Piperia yadonii. 

The ESMP and INRMP were completed, 

and the Army began implementing each 

of them, in 1999 and 2001, respectively 

(Harding ESE 1999; Harding ESE 2001; 

Cairns 2006). The conservation goal of 

the ESMP that addresses P. yadonii is to 

maintain the two occurrences on POM 

lands and protect them from impacts 

during use of the nearby obstacle/ 

orienteering course. The plan identifies 

the following actions that will benefit P. 

yadonii: Monitoring; protecting the 

populations from foot traffic by 

installing signs and by other means; 

removing nonnative plant species from 

documented and potential habitat; 

monitoring deer browsing and providing 

caging, if necessary; and establishing a 

propagation program, if necessary. The 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60428 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

POM has carried out the following in 

the past 5 years: Annual population 

monitoring since 2000, installation and 

maintenance of educational signs, 

creation of an educational brochure 

highlighting P. yadonii, construction 

and installation of outdoor bulletin 

boards on which the brochures are 

posted, and removal of infestations of 

nonnative French broom in over 13 

acres of Monterey pine forest habitat 

(Cairns 2006). 

Based on the above considerations, 

and in accordance with section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 

determined that conservation efforts 

identified in the ESMP and INRMP will 

provide benefits to Piperia yadonii 

occurring in habitats within the POM. 

Therefore, this installation is exempt 

from critical habitat designation under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act. 

Approximately 121 acres (49 ha) of 

habitat for P. yadonii is not included in 

this critical habitat designation due to 

this exemption. 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact, of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the Congressional record is clear that 

the Secretary is afforded broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give any 

factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

must identify the benefits of including 

the area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and determine whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If an exclusion is 

contemplated, then we must determine 

whether excluding the area would result 

in the extinction of the species. In the 

following sections, we address a number 

of general issues that are relevant to the 

exclusions we considered. 

Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat 

The information provided in this 

section applies to all the discussions 

below that discuss the benefits of 

inclusion and exclusion of critical 

habitat in that it provides the framework 

for the consultation process. 

Regulatory Benefits 

The consultation provisions under 

section 7(a) of the Act constitute the 

regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As 

discussed above, Federal agencies must 

consult with the Service on actions that 

may affect critical habitat and must 

avoid destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. Prior to the designation 

of critical habitat, consultation for a 

listed species occurs on actions that 

may affect the listed species, and 

Federal agencies must refrain from 

undertaking actions that jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. Thus 

the analysis of effects to critical habitat 

is a separate and different analysis from 

that of the effects to the species. 

Therefore, the difference in outcomes of 

these two analyses represents the 

regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For 

some species, and in some locations, the 

outcome of these analyses will be 

similar, because effects to habitat will 

often also result in effects to the species. 

However, the regulatory standard is 

different, as the jeopardy analysis looks 

on the action’s impact to survival and 

recovery of the species and the adverse 

modification analysis looks at the effects 

to the designated habitat’s contribution 

to conservation of the species. This will, 

in many instances, lead to different 

results, and different regulatory 

requirements. 

We note that, for 30 years prior to the 

Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in Gifford 

Pinchot, the Service essentially 

conflated the jeopardy standard with the 

standard for destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat when 

evaluating Federal actions that affect 

occupied critical habitat. The Court 

ruled that the two standards are distinct 

and that adverse modification 

evaluations require consideration of 

impacts on the recovery of species. 

Thus, critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species. 

There are two limitations to the 

regulatory effect of critical habitat. First, 

consultation is only required where 

there is a Federal nexus—if there is no 

Federal nexus, designation itself does 

not restrict actions that destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Second, it only limits destruction or 

adverse modification. By its nature, the 

prohibition on adverse modification is 

designed to ensure those areas that 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species or unoccupied areas that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are not eroded. Critical habitat 

designation alone, however, does not 

require specific steps toward recovery. 

Once consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act is triggered, the 

process may conclude informally when 

the Service concurs in writing that the 

proposed Federal action is not likely to 

adversely affect critical habitat. 

However, if the Service determines 

through informal consultation that 

adverse impacts are likely to occur, then 

formal consultation is initiated. Formal 

consultation concludes with a biological 

opinion issued by the Service on 

whether the proposed Federal action is 

likely to result in destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. For 

critical habitat, a biological opinion that 

reaches a ‘‘no destruction or adverse 

modification’’ determination may 

contain discretionary conservation 

recommendations to minimize adverse 

effects to primary constituent elements. 

We believe that in many instances the 

regulatory benefit of critical habitat is 

low when compared to voluntary 

conservation efforts or management 

plans. The conservation achieved 

through implementing Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs) under 

Section 10 of the Act or other habitat 

management plans is typically greater 

than would be achieved through 

multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, 

section 7 consultations involving 

consideration of critical habitat. 

Management plans commit resources to 

implement long-term management and 

protection to particular habitat for at 

least one and possibly other listed or 

sensitive species. Section 7 

consultations only commit Federal 

agencies to prevent adverse 

modification to critical habitat caused 

by the particular project, and they are 

not committed to provide conservation 

or long-term benefits to areas not 

affected by the proposed project. Thus, 

an HCP or management plan that 

incorporates enhancement or recovery 

as the management standard will often 

provide as much or more benefit than a 

consultation for critical habitat 

designation conducted under the 

standards required by the Ninth Circuit 

in the Gifford Pinchot decision. 

Educational Benefits 

A benefit of including lands in critical 

habitat is that the designation of critical 

habitat serves to educate landowners, 

State and local governments, and the 

public regarding the potential 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60429 

conservation value of an area. This 

helps focus and promote conservation 

efforts by other parties by clearly 

delineating areas of high conservation 

value for Piperia yadonii. In general, the 

educational benefit of a critical habitat 

designation always exists, although in 

some cases it may be redundant with 

other educational effects. For example, 

HCPs have significant public input and 

may largely duplicate the educational 

benefit of a critical habitat designation. 

This benefit is closely related to a 

second benefit: That the designation of 

critical habitat would inform State 

agencies and local governments about 

areas that could be conserved under 

State laws or local ordinances. 

Recovery Benefits 

The process of designating critical 

habitat as described in the Act requires 

that the Service identify those lands on 

which are found the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. In 

identifying those lands, the Service 

must consider the recovery needs of the 

species, such that the habitat that is 

identified, if managed, could provide for 

the survival and recovery of the species. 

Furthermore, once critical habitat has 

been designated, Federal agencies must 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure that their 

actions will not adversely modify 

designated critical habitat or jeopardize 

the continued existence of the species. 

As noted in the Ninth Circuit’s Gifford 

Pinchot decision, the Court ruled that 

the jeopardy and adverse modification 

standards are distinct, and that adverse 

modification evaluations require 

consideration of impacts to the recovery 

of species. Thus, through the section 

7(a)(2) consultation process, critical 

habitat designations provide recovery 

benefits to species by ensuring that 

Federal actions will not destroy or 

adversely modify designated critical 

habitat. 

It is beneficial to identify those lands 

that are necessary for the conservation 

of the species and that, if managed 

appropriately, would further recovery 

measures for the species. The process of 

proposing and finalizing a critical 

habitat rule provides the Service with 

the opportunity to determine lands 

essential for conservation as well as 

identify the primary constituent 

elements or features essential for 

conservation on those lands. The 

designation process includes peer 

review and public comment on the 

identified features and lands. This 

process is valuable to landowners and 

managers in developing conservation 

management plans for identified lands, 

as well as any other occupied habitat or 

suitable habitat that may not have been 

included in the Service’s determination 

of essential habitat. 

However, the designation of critical 

habitat does not require that any 

management or recovery actions take 

place on the lands included in the 

designation. Even in cases where 

consultation has been initiated under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result 

of consultation is to avoid jeopardy to 

the species and adverse modification of 

its critical habitat, but not specifically to 

manage remaining lands or institute 

recovery actions on remaining lands. 

Conversely, management plans institute 

proactive actions over the lands they 

encompass intentionally to remove or 

reduce known threats to a species or its 

habitat and, therefore, implement 

recovery actions. We believe that the 

conservation of a species and its habitat 

that could be achieved through the 

designation of critical habitat, in some 

cases, is less than the conservation that 

could be achieved through the 

implementation of a management plan 

that includes species-specific provisions 

and considers enhancement or recovery 

of listed species as the management 

standard over the same lands. 

Consequently, implementation of any 

HCP or management plan that considers 

enhancement or recovery as the 

management standard will often provide 

as much or more benefit than a 

consultation for critical habitat 

designation conducted under the 

standards required by the Ninth Circuit 

in the Gifford Pinchot decision. 

Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands 

Most federally listed species in the 

United States will not recover without 

the cooperation of non-Federal 

landowners. More than 60 percent of the 

United States is privately owned 

(National Wilderness Institute 1995, p. 

2), and at least 80 percent of endangered 

or threatened species occur either 

partially or solely on private lands 

(Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720). Stein et al. 

(1995, p. 400) found that only about 12 

percent of listed species were found 

almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 

to 100 percent of their known 

occurrences restricted to Federal lands) 

and that 50 percent of federally listed 

species are not known to occur on 

Federal lands at all. 

Given the distribution of listed 

species with respect to land ownership, 

conservation of listed species in many 

parts of the United States is dependent 

upon working partnerships with a wide 

variety of entities and the voluntary 

cooperation of many non-Federal 

landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 

1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James 

2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and 

promoting voluntary cooperation of 

landowners is essential to 

understanding the status of species on 

non-Federal lands and is necessary to 

implement recovery actions such as 

reintroducing listed species, habitat 

restoration, and habitat protection. 

Many non-Federal landowners derive 

satisfaction in contributing to 

endangered species recovery. The 

Service promotes these private-sector 

efforts through the Department of the 

Interior’s Cooperative Conservation 

philosophy. Conservation agreements 

with non-Federal landowners (HCPs, 

safe harbor agreements, other 

conservation agreements, easements, 

and State and local regulations) enhance 

species conservation by extending 

species protections beyond those 

available through section 7 

consultations. In the past decade, we 

have encouraged non-Federal 

landowners to enter into conservation 

agreements, based on a view that we can 

achieve greater species conservation on 

non-Federal land through such 

partnerships than we can through 

regulatory methods (61 FR 63854; 

December 2, 1996). 

Many private landowners, however, 

are wary of the possible consequences of 

encouraging endangered species to their 

property, and there is mounting 

evidence that some regulatory actions 

by the Federal Government, while 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, pp. 5–6; 

Bean 2002, pp. 2–3; Conner and 

Mathews 2002, pp. 1–2; James 2002, pp. 

270–271; Koch 2002, pp. 2–3; Brook et 

al. 2003, pp. 1639–1643). Many 

landowners fear a decline in their 

property value due to real or perceived 

restrictions on land-use options where 

threatened or endangered species are 

found. Consequently, harboring 

endangered species is viewed by many 

landowners as a liability, resulting in 

anti-conservation incentives because 

maintaining habitats that harbor 

endangered species represents a risk to 

future economic opportunities (Main et 

al. 1999, pp. 1264–1265; Brook et al. 

2003, pp. 1644–1648). According to 

some researchers, the designation of 

critical habitat on private lands 

significantly reduces the likelihood that 

landowners will support and carry out 

conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, 

p. 1263; Bean 2002, p. 2; Brook et al. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60430 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2003, pp. 1644–1648). The magnitude of 

this negative outcome is greatly 

amplified in situations where active 

management measures (such as 

reintroduction, fire management, and 

control of invasive species) are 

necessary for species conservation (Bean 

2002, pp. 3–4). The Service believes that 

the judicious exclusion of specific areas 

of non-federally owned lands from 

critical habitat designations can 

contribute to species recovery and 

provide a superior level of conservation 

than critical habitat alone. 

The purpose of designating critical 

habitat is to contribute to the 

conservation of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The outcome 

of the designation, triggering regulatory 

requirements for actions funded, 

authorized, or carried out by Federal 

agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act, can sometimes be 

counterproductive to its intended 

purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus the 

benefits of excluding areas that are 

covered by partnerships or voluntary 

conservation efforts can often be high. 

Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs 

or Other Management Plans From 

Critical Habitat 

The benefits of excluding lands with 

HCPs or other management plans from 

critical habitat designation include 

relieving landowners, communities, and 

counties of any additional regulatory 

burden that might be imposed by a 

critical habitat designation. Most HCPs 

and other conservation plans take many 

years to develop and, upon completion, 

are consistent with the recovery 

objectives for listed species that are 

covered within the plan area. Many 

conservation plans also provide 

conservation benefits to unlisted 

sensitive species. Imposing an 

additional regulatory review as a result 

of the designation of critical habitat may 

undermine these conservation efforts 

and partnerships designed to 

proactively protect species to ensure 

that listing under the Act will not be 

necessary. Designation of critical habitat 

within the boundaries of management 

plans that provide conservation 

measures for a species could be viewed 

as a disincentive to those entities 

currently developing these plans or 

contemplating them in the future, 

because one of the incentives for 

undertaking conservation is greater ease 

of permitting where listed species are 

affected. Addition of a new regulatory 

requirement would remove a significant 

incentive for undertaking the time and 

expense of management planning. In 

fact, designating critical habitat in areas 

covered by a pending HCP or 

conservation plan could result in the 

loss of some species’ benefits if 

participants abandon the planning 

process, in part because of the strength 

of the perceived additional regulatory 

compliance that such designation would 

entail. The time and cost of regulatory 

compliance for a critical habitat 

designation do not have to be quantified 

for them to be perceived as additional 

Federal regulatory burden sufficient to 

discourage continued participation in 

plans targeting listed species’

conservation. 

A related benefit of excluding lands 

within management plans from critical 

habitat designation is the unhindered, 

continued ability to seek new 

partnerships with future plan 

participants including States, counties, 

local jurisdictions, conservation 

organizations, and private landowners, 

which together can implement 

conservation actions that we would be 

unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands 

within approved management plan 

areas are designated as critical habitat, 

it would likely have a negative effect on 

our ability to establish new partnerships 

to develop these plans, particularly 

plans that address landscape-level 

conservation of species and habitats. By 

preemptively excluding these lands, we 

preserve our current partnerships and 

encourage additional conservation 

actions in the future. 

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

Act 

After consideration under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, we are proposing to 

exclude the following areas of habitat 

from the critical habitat designation for 

Piperia yadonii: 49 acres in Unit 4 and 

100 acres in Unit 6. There are two 

exclusions: One for areas proposed for 

development under a conservation 

agreement with Pebble Beach Company, 

and the other for an area owned by the 

Stevenson School. 

The Pebble Beach Company has 

submitted a conservation agreement for 

its lands that are within P. yadonii 

critical habitat units on the Monterey 

Peninsula (Unit 6), and interior to the 

Monterey Peninsula (Unit 4 and Unit 5). 

We have considered this conservation 

strategy in our designation and have 

excluded from critical habitat 

approximately 143 ac (58 ha) we had 

proposed for critical habitat that are 

currently owned and managed by the 

Pebble Beach Company in subunits 4a, 

4b, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e. We are also 

excluding from the designation 

approximately 6 ac (2 ha) owned by 

Stevenson School on the Monterey 

Peninsula. We believe that these areas 

are appropriate for exclusion under the 

‘‘other relevant factor’’ provisions of 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. A detailed 

analysis of our exclusion of these lands 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act is 

provided in the paragraphs below. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Approved Management Plans—

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

Act 

Pebble Beach Company Lands 

A Memorandum of Understanding 

between the Service and the Pebble 

Beach Company serves as the 

conservation agreement addressing 

Piperia yadonii on Pebble Beach 

Company (Company) lands. It identifies 

different management strategies and 

conservation benefits to P. yadonii, 

depending on whether or not the 

Company receives government 

approvals for their proposed 

development project. The conservation 

agreement essentially summarizes and 

commits the Company to the 

preservation, management, avoidance, 

minimization, and enhancement 

measures for P. yadonii in the 

Company’s Del Monte Forest 

Preservation and Development Plan 

(DMF/PDP) and the additional 

mitigations included by the County of 

Monterey in the 2005 FEIR (Monterey 

County 2005), providing that the 

Company receives local, State, and 

Federal government agency approvals 

for the development portion of their 

proposed project. Almost all of the 

Company lands in the Del Monte Forest 

(Subunits 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e), and Old 

Capitol (Unit 5), that were proposed as 

critical habitat were required to be 

conserved as mitigation for 

development in that planning process. 

With these approvals, the conservation 

agreement would provide a benefit to P. 

yadonii that is beyond that of the FEIRdefined project, in that it includes the 

Company’s commitment to preserve and 

manage lands identified in the 

conservation agreement in perpetuity, 

superseding the provision described in 

the FEIR that requires the County 

Supervisors to decide on the need for 

continued management after 20 years of 

implementation (Monterey County 2005 

(PRDEIR), p. P2–19). By including this 

requirement, the conservation 

agreement recognizes that management 

activities, such as control of nonnative 

species and recreational access, should 

occur in perpetuity, given that the 

effects of surrounding development 

occur in perpetuity. The conservation 

agreement references the FEIR and its 

suite of actions designed to conserve P. 

yadonii and offset adverse effects of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60431 

proposed development on the species. 

They include the Company’s 

commitment to: 

a. Preserve Monterey pine forest and 

maritime chaparral habitat occupied by 

Piperia yadonii, in the areas identified 

as mitigation for Yadon’s piperia in the 

FEIR and the County’s mitigation 

conditions (Monterey County 2005); 

b. Maintain the quality and acreage of 

habitat occupied by Piperia yadonii 

within the lands identified in (a), above, 

through resource management; 

c. Reduce the loss of Piperia yadonii 

through siting and design of 

development project components; 

d. Reduce the direct and indirect 

effects on extant Piperia yadonii 

adjacent to development areas, through 

staff education, and implementation of 

protective measures addressing golf 

course use, maintenance, and 

construction; 

e. Salvage and transplant Piperia 

yadonii as described in the FEIR 

(Monterey County 2005); 

f. Enhance and expand occupied 

habitat for Piperia yadonii on the lands 

identified in (a) above, by convening an 

Adaptive Management Team and 

developing and implementing the 

Piperia Plan and a program of 

management-oriented research and 

testing. The Piperia Plan would be 

developed by a third-party consultant, 

agreed to by the Service, and would 

describe a scientifically sound, 

coordinated approach to preservation, 

enhancement, and management of P. 

yadonii on the lands addressed in the 

FEIR. Following the initial County 

approvals, the Adaptive Management 

Team convened, and the Pebble Beach 

Company has begun funding a program 

of management and enhancementoriented research for P. yadonii. 

In June 2007, the California Coastal 

Commission denied approval of a 

Monterey County measure that was 

needed for the Company to secure 

project approvals. The eventual 

outcome of this process is unknown. In 

the absence of approvals on the current 

project, the Company may pursue an 

alternate project. The conservation 

agreement describes alternate actions, in 

the event that the Company’s project 

does not receive government approvals. 

Under the conservation agreement, if 

they receive approvals for an alternative 

project that lacks an 18-hole golf course, 

the Company would preserve and 

manage at least 511 ac (207 ha) of land 

in the Del Monte Forest, Old Capitol 

and Aguajito areas, as identified in the 

conservation agreement exhibits. The 

areas the Conservation Agreement 

identifies for dedication include all 

Company lands in designated critical 

habitat on the Del Monte Forest (in 

Subunits 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e) and at Old 

Capitol (Unit 5), as well as designated 

critical habitat at Aguajito (all of 

Subunit 4a and half of Subunit 4b). The 

conservation agreement allows some 

flexibility in which specific parcels of 

Monterey pine forest habitat will be 

preserved. If the Pebble Beach Company 

obtains approval for a future project, the 

company will not begin developing any 

area supporting P. yadonii until they 

dedicate the lands to be preserved. The 

conservation agreement includes no 

time requirement on the dedications, 

other than that they must occur prior to 

development that would adversely 

affect P. yadonii. 

Under the conservation agreement, 

the Company has committed to manage, 

for the interim period until a future 

project approval and dedication occur, 

the lands they own that are designated 

as critical habitat and identified as 

future dedication areas in the 

agreement. They will also manage Areas 

N and O for the benefit of P. yadonii, 

until the development approvals are 

secured and the land dedication takes 

place. Areas N and O are part of the 

contiguous forested area known as 

MNOUV, are adjacent to Subunit 6b, 

and support abundant P. yadonii. The 

management actions the Company will 

carry out include removing nonnative 

species from occupied P. yadonii 

habitat; controlling runoff and erosion; 

installing and maintaining vehicle 

barriers to stop entrance into 

populations; removing debris and 

encampments from P. yadonii locations; 

and educating landowners, utility 

workers, and golf course personnel 

about practices to reduce impacts to P. 

yadonii. To improve the success of these 

and other management actions, the 

Company has also committed to 

conduct management-oriented research 

(not to exceed $25,000 annually), during 

that interim period, similar to what the 

Company has already begun through the 

Adaptive Management Team. The 

conservation agreement specifies that 

the Company will fully fund, with a 

written guarantee, the components of 

the conservation agreement if a future 

dedication of lands occurs. 

The benefits of including lands in 

critical habitat can be regulatory, 

educational, or to aid in recovery of 

species as generally discussed earlier in 

this rule. In the case of Piperia yadonii 

on the Monterey Peninsula, there may 

be some Federal regulatory benefit to 

the designation only if a Federal action 

triggers a consultation under section 7 

of the Act. The Federal nexus would 

most likely occur due to either wetland 

impacts in the Monterey pine forest that 

require a Corps permit, or via a 

consultation on an HCP that was 

initiated for a listed animal species in 

the Del Monte forest, such as the 

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 

draytonii). To date, there have been no 

consultations or HCPs that addressed P. 

yadonii and its upland habitat in the Del 

Monte forest. However, in a recent 

Corps consultation on the California 

red-legged frog, only wetland habitats 

were addressed, and consideration of 

impacts to adjacent upland habitat that 

support P. yadonii were determined to 

be beyond the scope of consultation. 

The likelihood of future consultations or 

HCPs would depend largely on the 

configuration of future proposed 

development that might adversely affect 

the red-legged frog and trigger these 

actions. However, because the Act does 

not restrict the take of plants on private 

lands, the likelihood of future HCPs 

covering this species is low. 

The educational benefits of critical 

habitat in this case are relatively low for 

most of the lands we are excluding, 

because previous publications have 

already identified and discussed their 

importance to the conservation of 

Piperia yadonii. The primary regulatory 

agencies that have permitting authority 

related to land use in this area are 

Monterey County and the Coastal 

Commission. These agencies and the 

landowner are well aware of where the 

P. yadonii and its Monterey pine forest 

habitat occur, due to the publication of 

the environmental impact statement for 

the Pebble Beach Company’s DMF/PDP 

(Monterey County 2005) and California 

Coastal Commission staff reports on the 

proposed project. Therefore, we believe 

that the educational benefits that 

inclusion of these lands would provide 

for P. yadonii are relatively low. 

Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than was previously 

believed. However, the protection 

provided is still a limitation on the 

adverse effects that may occur to 

designated critical habitat, as opposed 

to a requirement to affirmatively 

provide a conservation benefit on those 

lands. As outlined above, the Company 

has committed to definite conservation 

actions on lands covered under the 

conservation agreement. Therefore, we 

believe the benefits to recovery based on 

inclusion of these lands in critical 

habitat for Piperia yadonii are low. 

Therefore, we find that because of the 

agreement with Pebble Beach Company, 

the benefits of including the excluded 

Pebble Beach areas as critical habitat are 

low. The conservation stipulated in the 

agreement would likely not be 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60432 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

forthcoming if these areas were 

designated. Since the Act’s protection of 

plants on private lands is low, the 

Service believes that it will achieve 

more conservation from this agreement 

than it would from a critical habitat 

designation on these lands. 

Benefits of Exclusion 

Implementation of the conservation 

agreement will provide benefits to P. 

yadonii as discussed earlier. The 

company has committed to manage P. 

yadonii and its Monterey Forest habitat 

and to conduct additional managementoriented research in areas identified for 

conservation in the conservation 

agreement until future approval of a 

development project is obtained. Once a 

future development project is approved, 

the Company has agreed to permanently 

preserve 511 acres of land on which P. 

yadonii occurs and to provide 

management of all conserved habitat 

areas in perpetuity. Because the interim 

management will be well-informed by 

management-oriented research, we 

expect it to promote the viability and 

growth of P. yadonii populations during 

the period prior to a future land 

dedication. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The Pebble Beach Company 

committed to the conservation measures 

in the conservation agreement in 

recognition that some of its lands will 

not be designated as critical habitat 

while others will. It is probable that the 

Company would elect not to continue 

with the conservation commitments if 

the 143 acres to be excluded under 

Section 4(b)(2) were included in the 

final designation. We believe the 

proactive management of P. yadonii and 

its designated habitat provided under 

the conservation agreement provides 

significant benefits to this species that 

would be foregone in the absence of 

exclusion of the 143 acres. In contrast to 

the important benefits to designated 

habitat realized by exclusion of the 143 

acres, the benefits of inclusion are, as 

noted above, likely to be minor because 

of the lack of a federal nexus that would 

serve to trigger section 7 consultation 

for projects affecting the 143 acres, and 

because, even in situations where 

consultation might occur, it would be 

unlikely to result in proactive 

management of the species and its 

Monterey pine forest habitat. Even with 

the exclusion of these lands, over 1,000 

ac (405 ha) of critical habitat will still 

be designated in Units 4, 5, and 6. Over 

900 ac (364 ha) are in Unit 6 on the 

Monterey Peninsula in the Del Monte 

Forest. 

Further, because we have already 

come to agreement about how to manage 

the development at Pebble Beach and 

avoid adverse impacts to the status of 

the species, the further effort involved 

in consultations or other regulatory 

actions with respect to this site would 

be unnecessary. Therefore, a benefit of 

exclusion is avoiding additional 

regulatory uncertainty and process. 

In conclusion, we have evaluated the 

potential regulatory and educational 

benefits that would result from 

inclusion of the 143 ac (58 ha) in 

Subunits 4a, 4b, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e. We 

have weighed these against the more 

tangible conservation benefits that 

would occur for the designated lands in 

Units 4, 5, and 6 under the conservation 

agreement and conclude that, due to the 

configuration and size of the area 

considered for exclusion, the large 

acreage in Unit 6 that would still be 

designated as critical habitat, and the 

benefits that could accrue on those 

designated lands under the conservation 

agreement, the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion; 

therefore, we are excluding the 143 ac 

(58 ha) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species 

We do not believe that the exclusion 

of the 143 ac (58 ha) from Units 4 and 

6 based on the conservation agreement 

from the final designation of critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of P. 

yadonii. Overall, this area represents 

less than 15 percent of the proposed 

designation in Units 4, 5, and 6, and 

does not support the greatest 

concentrations of plants or the highest 

quality habitat of the lands we are 

designating as critical habitat. In 

addition, because the 143 acres we are 

excluding from critical habitat are 

occupied by P. yadonii, consultations 

under Section 7 that involve these lands 

will occur even in the absence of their 

designation as critical habitat. 

Application of the jeopardy standard of 

section 7 of the Act also provides 

assurances that the species will not go 

extinct. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Other 

Lands—Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Stevenson School Property 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the 

Secretary to exclude areas from critical 

habitat for economic reasons if the 

Secretary determines that the benefits of 

such exclusion exceed the benefits of 

designating the area as critical habitat. 

However, this exclusion cannot occur if 

it will result in the extinction of the 

species concerned. 

In making the following exclusion, we 

have considered in general that all of 

the costs and other impacts predicted in 

the economic analysis might not be 

avoided by this exclusion. This is 

because the area in question is currently 

occupied by P. yadonii and there will be 

requirements for consultation under 

section 7 of the Act. In conducting 

economic analyses, we are guided by 

the ruling in New Mexico Cattle Growers 

Assn. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

248F.3d 1285 (10th Cir 2001), which 

directed us to consider all impacts 

‘‘regardless of whether those impacts are 

attributable co-extensively to other 

causes.’’ As explained in the economic 

analysis, due to possible overlapping 

regulatory schemes and other reasons, 

some elements of the analysis may also 

overstate some costs. 

Conversely, in Gifford Pinchot, the 

court ruled that our regulations are 

invalid because they define adverse 

modification as affecting both survival 

and recovery of a species. The court 

directed us to consider that 

determinations of adverse modification 

should be focused on impacts to 

recovery. Compliance with the court’s 

direction may result in additional costs 

associated with critical habitat 

designation. In light of the New Mexico 

Cattle Growers decision, our current 

approach to conducting economic 

analyses of our critical habitat 

designations is to consider all 

conservation-related costs. This 

approach would include costs related to 

sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and 

should encompass costs that we would 

consider and evaluate in light of the 

Gifford Pinchot ruling. 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act—Economic Exclusion of Stevenson 

School Property 

The Stevenson School is a non-profit, 

non-sectarian, independent, K–12 

school that owns approximately 6 ac 

(2.4 ha) in unit 6a. The Stevenson 

School has plans to develop a portion of 

its campus (called the ‘‘Forested Area’’

in its Master Plan) into an athletic field. 

The Master Plan for the Campus was 

developed in the 1980s and submitted 

to the Monterey County Board of 

Supervisors in 1983. The Master Plan, 

which includes plans for new 

educational facilities, residence halls, as 

well as athletic facilities, has been 

implemented in stages since 1983. 

Although the Stevenson School has not 

developed the Forested Area yet, it has 

stated that it intends to do so in the 

future, as planned out in the Master 

Plan. The Stevenson School currently 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60433 

uses a nearby athletic field owned by 

the PBC called Collins Field. However, 

the PBC can revoke this agreement at 

any time. The Stevenson School plans 

to develop the Forested Area according 

to the timeline laid out in the Master 

Plan to ensure its students are 

guaranteed an additional on-campus 

athletic field to use. If the PBC revokes 

its agreement and the Stevenson School 

cannot develop the Forested Area, the 

alternatives, according to the Stevenson 

School, include bussing students to an 

alternative field or eliminating some 

sports programs. 

The final economic analysis identifies 

estimated potential costs to the 

Stevenson School could range from 

$0.006 to $9.2 million (present value at 

a three percent discount rate) over 20 

years. At the low end of the range, the 

Stevenson School may require a permit 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(ACOE) to comply with section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act because the 

Stevenson School property contains 

drainages on the border that may be 

considered waters of the United States. 

If the Stevenson School designs its 

athletic field in such a way that it would 

impact the drainages, Federal nexus 

resulting from the ACOE permitting of 

the activity may require a section 7 

consultation with the Service regarding 

P. yadonii. The consultation would 

result in administrative costs to the 

Stevenson School of approximately 

$5,579 (present value at a three percent 

discount rate). At the upper end of the 

range, economic impacts are the result 

of the disutility cost of transporting 

student athletes to the alternative field 

during school hours plus the cost of 

purchasing more buses and fuel, and 

hiring more drivers. In addition, the 

Stevenson School may lose other 

benefits associated with the athletic 

field; however, those benefits are 

unknown and too hypothetical to 

quantify. If the student athletes are 

transported to the alternative field, the 

total cost to the Stevenson School could 

be as high as $9.2 million (present value 

at a three percent discount rate) over the 

next 20 years. 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The benefits of including lands in 

critical habitat can be regulatory, 

educational, or to aid in recovery of 

species as generally discussed earlier in 

this rule. In the case of P. yadonii on the 

Stevenson School property, the Federal 

nexus would most likely occur due to 

either wetland impacts that require a 

Corps permit, or via a consultation on 

an HCP that was initiated for a listed 

animal species. To date, there have been 

no consultations or HCPs that addressed 

P. yadonii and its upland habitat. In a 

recent Corps consultation on the 

California red-legged frog, only wetland 

habitats were addressed, and 

consideration of impacts to adjacent 

upland habitat that support P. yadonii 

were determined to be beyond the scope 

of consultation. The likelihood of future 

consultations or HCPs would depend 

largely on the configuration of future 

proposed development that might 

adversely affect the California redlegged frog and trigger these actions. 

However, because the Act does not 

restrict the take of plants on private 

lands, the likelihood of future HCPs 

covering this species is low. Therefore 

we have determined that the regulatory 

benefits of designating critical habitat 

on the Stevenson School property 

would be low. 

Additionally, including the Stevenson 

School parcel in critical habitat could 

provide an educational benefit, 

signaling the importance of those lands 

to others, including the Coastal 

Commission and the County of 

Monterey. However, both of these 

entities already recognize and consider 

the importance of conserving sensitive 

resources, including P. yadonii, in their 

project review process and future 

buildout on the Stevenson School parcel 

would be subject to the requirements of 

those agencies. Therefore, we have 

determined that the educational benefits 

of designating critical habitat on the 

Stevenson School property would be 

low. 

The primary benefit of including an 

area within a critical habitat designation 

is the protection provided by section 

7(a)(2) of the Act that directs Federal 

agencies to ensure that their actions do 

not result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat may 

provide a different level of protection 

under section 7(a)(2) for P. yadonii that 

is separate from the obligation of a 

Federal agency to ensure that their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species. 

Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than was previously 

believed, but it is not possible to 

quantify this benefit at present. 

However, the protection provided limits 

adverse effects as opposed to a 

requirement to provide a conservation 

benefit. 

Benefits of Exclusion 

We believe that the benefits of 

excluding the Stevenson School 

property from the designation of critical 

habitat—avoiding the potential 

economic impacts predicted in the 

economic analysis—exceed the 

educational, regulatory, and recovery 

benefits which could result from 

including those lands in the designation 

of critical habitat. 

We have evaluated and considered 

the potential economic costs on the 

Stevenson School relative to the 

potential benefit for P. yadonii and its 

primary constituent elements that could 

result from the designation of critical 

habitat. We believe that the potential 

economic impact of up to approximately 

$9.2 million (undiscounted, over the 

next 20 years) on the school 

significantly outweighs the potential 

conservation and protective benefits for 

the species and its primary constituent 

elements derived from the potential 

restrictions as a result of this 

designation on educational facilities 

constructed on this site. 

We believe that excluding the 

Stevenson School property, and thus 

relieving the school of additional costs 

that would result from compliance with 

the designation, will allow the School 

the flexibility to plan for the best use of 

their lands for the educational benefits 

of their students. We therefore find that 

the benefits of excluding these areas 

from the designation of critical habitat 

outweigh the benefits of including them 

in the designation. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species 

We do not believe that the exclusion 

of the 6 ac (2.4 ha) from subunit 6a will 

result in the extinction of P. yadonii. 

Overall, this area represents less than 

0.5 percent of the proposed designation 

in Unit 6, and does not support the 

greatest concentrations of plants or the 

highest quality habitat of the lands we 

are designating as critical habitat. In 

addition, because the 6 ac (2.4 ha) we 

are excluding from critical habitat are 

occupied by P. yadonii, if a Federal 

nexus is present, consultations under 

Section 7 that involve these lands may 

occur even in the absence of their 

designation as critical habitat. 

Application of the jeopardy standard of 

section 7 of the Act, if consultation 

occurs, also provides assurances that the 

species will not go extinct. 

Economic Analysis 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us 

to designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific information 

available and to consider the economic 

and other relevant impacts of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat. We may exclude areas from 

critical habitat upon a determination 

that the benefits of such exclusions 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60434 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

outweigh the benefits of specifying such 

areas as critical habitat. We cannot 

exclude such areas from critical habitat 

when such exclusion will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned. 

Following the publication of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we conducted an economic analysis to 

estimate the potential economic effects 

of the designation. The draft analysis 

was made available for public review on 

August 7, 2007 (72 FR 44069). We 

accepted comments on the draft analysis 

until September 6, 2007. Following the 

close of the comment period, we 

reviewed and considered the public 

comments and information we received 

and prepared responses to those 

comments (see Responses to Comments 

section above) or incorporated the 

information or changes directly into this 

final rule or our final economic analysis. 

The primary purpose of the economic 

analysis is to estimate the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

designation of critical habitat for Piperia 

yadonii. This information is intended to 

assist the Secretary in making decisions 

about whether the benefits of excluding 

particular areas from the designation 

outweigh the benefits of including those 

areas in the designation. This economic 

analysis considers the economic 

efficiency effects that may result from 

the designation, including habitat 

protections that may be co-extensive 

with the listing of the species. It also 

addresses distribution of impacts, 

including an assessment of the potential 

effects on small entities and the energy 

industry. This information can be used 

by the Secretary to assess whether the 

effects of the designation might unduly 

burden a particular group or economic 

sector. 

The final economic analysis attempts 

to isolate those direct and indirect 

impacts that are expected to be triggered 

specifically by the critical habitat 

designation. That is, the incremental 

conservation efforts and associated 

impacts included in this appendix 

would not be expected to occur absent 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

species. 

The proposed rule may impact two 

landowners, the Pebble Beach Company 

(PBC), and the Stevenson School. 

Incremental impacts to PBC are 

estimated to range from $0 to $2.6 

million, depending on the scenarios 

described in section V of this analysis. 

The Stevenson School may bear 

incremental administrative impacts as a 

result of addressing adverse 

modification in section 7 consultation. 

The Stevenson School may bear 

additional incremental impacts 

associated with the modifications that 

may be placed on the project to address 

adverse modification, but these project 

modifications are too hypothetical to 

quantify. The remaining impacts 

quantified in the report, which are 

discussed below, are expected to occur 

regardless of the designation of critical 

habitat. 

Coextensive Future Impacts: The 

economic analysis forecasts future 

coextensive impacts associated with 

conservation efforts for the piperia 

within areas of proposed critical habitat 

to range from $6.6 to $16.1 million 

(present value at a three percent 

discount rate) over the next 20 years 

($0.43 to $1.0 million annualized). 

Impacts to PBC, and the Stevenson 

School comprise the majority of the 

total quantified impacts in the areas of 

proposed critical habitat. 

• Pebble Beach Company: PBC, 

which manages land in units 4a, 4b, 5, 

6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e, has implemented 

management techniques designed to 

conserve the piperia and its habitat. 

Efforts include ongoing open space 

management and maintenance, golf 

course and residential area management 

and maintenance, site clean up and 

restoration, and monitoring and 

patrolling. As a result, total impacts to 

the Pebble Beach Company of protecting 

and restoring the piperia habitat are $5.5 

million (present value at a three percent 

discount rate) over 20 years. 

• Stevenson School: The Stevenson 

School, which owns land in unit 6a, 

plans to develop an area of proposed 

critical habitat into an athletic field in 

the future. Currently, the Stevenson 

School is in an agreement to use a field 

owned by the PBC, but an approved 

PBC development plan will eliminate 

the School’s ability to use the PBC field. 

If the Stevenson School cannot develop 

the field, the School would have to 

transport student athletes to an 

alternative off-campus site. If the 

Stevenson School can develop the field, 

section 7 of the ESA will likely apply 

because of the Clean Water Act, which 

will trigger a federal nexus, and require 

the ACOE to consult with the Service, 

leading to administrative costs to the 

Stevenson School. After the designation 

of critical habitat, the outcome of the 

biological opinion from the section 7 

consultation may be more costly due to 

additional measures to address the 

potential for adverse modification of 

critical habitat. As a result, the potential 

economic impacts to the Stevenson 

School could range from $0.006 to $9.2 

million (present value at a three percent 

discount rate) over 20 years. 

We evaluated the potential economic 

impact of this designation as identified 

in the draft analysis. Based on this 

evaluation, we have excluded Stevenson 

School for economic reasons. We have 

also excluded Pebble Beach Company 

lands for conservation partnership 

reasons. 

A copy of the final economic analyses 

with supporting documents are 

included in our administrative record 

and may be obtained by contacting U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of 

Endangered Species (see ADDRESSES

section) or for downloading from the 

Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues, but will not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or affect the economy 

in a material way. Due to the tight 

timeline for publication in the Federal 

Register, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has not formally 

reviewed this rule. As explained above, 

we prepared an economic analysis of 

this action. We used this analysis to 

meet the requirement of section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act to determine the economic 

consequences of designating the specific 

areas as critical habitat. We also used it 

to help determine whether to exclude 

any area from critical habitat, as 

provided for under section 4(b)(2), if we 

determine that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless we determine, 

based on the best scientific data 

available, that the failure to designate 

such area as critical habitat will result 

in the extinction of the species. 

Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal 

agencies promulgating regulations to 

evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB 

Circular A–4, September 17, 2003). 

Under Circular A–4, once an agency 

determines that the Federal regulatory 

action is appropriate, the agency must 

consider alternative regulatory 

approaches. Because the determination 

of critical habitat is a statutory 

requirement under the Act, we must 

evaluate alternative regulatory 

approaches, where feasible, when 

promulgating a designation of critical 

habitat. 

In developing our designations of 

critical habitat, we consider economic 

impacts, impacts to national security, 

and other relevant impacts under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the 

discretion allowable under this 

provision, we may exclude any 

particular area from the designation of 

critical habitat providing that the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60435 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying the area as critical 

habitat and that such exclusion would 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. As such, we believe that the 

evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion 

of particular areas, or a combination of 

both, constitutes our regulatory 

alternative analysis for designations. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small 

organizations, such as independent 

nonprofit organizations; small 

governmental jurisdictions, including 

school boards and city and town 

governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses. Small businesses include 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we consider the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., housing development, grazing, oil 

and gas production, timber harvesting). 

We apply the ‘‘substantial number’’ test 

individually to each industry to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

However, the SBREFA does not 

explicitly define ‘‘substantial number’’

or ‘‘significant economic impact.’’

Consequently, to assess whether a 

‘‘substantial number’’ of small entities is 

affected by this designation, this 

analysis considers the relative number 

of small entities likely to be impacted in 

an area. In some circumstances, 

especially with critical habitat 

designations of limited extent, we may 

aggregate across all industries and 

consider whether the total number of 

small entities affected is substantial. In 

estimating the number of small entities 

potentially affected, we also consider 

whether their activities have any 

Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, or 

permitted by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act on activities 

they fund, permit, or implement that 

may affect Piperia yadonii. Federal 

agencies also must consult with us if 

their activities may affect critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat, 

therefore, could result in an additional 

economic impact on small entities due 

to the requirement to reinitiate 

consultation for ongoing Federal 

activities. 

To determine if the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for Piperia 

yadonii would affect a substantial 

number of small entities, we considered 

the number of small entities affected 

within particular types of economic 

activities (e.g., residential and 

commercial development). There is only 

one entity that qualifies as a small entity 

under SBRFA, the Stevenson School. 

The economic impacts to the Stevenson 

School are presented as a range, with 

the upper end of the range calculated 

under the assumption that the 

Stevenson School cannot develop the 

athletic field and the lower end of the 

range calculated under the assumption 

that the Stevenson School can develop 

the athletic field and thereby impacted 

by the administrative costs of section 7 

consultation. The potential economic 

impacts to the Stevenson School could 

range from $0.006 to $9.2 million 

present value at a three percent discount 

rate) over 20 years. 

These impacts are attributed to the 

presence of the piperia in the Forested 

Area, not to the proposed rule. The 

incremental impacts are therefore only 

those expected to result from 

considering adverse modification in 

addition to jeopardy in the case that 

consultation occurs for the project 

($1,335, present value at a three percent 

discount rate). Project modifications 

that may be placed on the project to 

address adverse modification could add 

additional costs to the Stevenson 

School. We have excluded the 

Stevenson School in the final rule, so 

these impacts will not occur as a result 

of this designation. Therefore we certify 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. While this 

final rule to designate critical habitat for 

Piperia yadonii is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 in that it may raise novel legal 

and policy issues, our economic 

analysis determined that it is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, 

tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60436 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 0.9 

percent (19 ac/8 ha) of the total critical 

habitat designation for Piperia yadonii 

is owned by a small government entity, 

the City of Pacific Grove. Furthermore, 

a large portion of these lands are 

designated as parks or open space and 

are managed at least in part for 

conservation of natural resources. As 

such, a Small Government Agency Plan 

is not required. 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), we 

have analyzed the potential takings 

implications of designating critical 

habitat for Piperia yadonii in a takings 

implication assessment. The takings 

implications assessment concludes that 

this final designation of critical habitat 

for P. yadonii does not pose significant 

takings implications. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects. A Federalism 

assessment is not required. In keeping 

with DOI policy, we requested 

information from, and coordinated 

development of, this critical habitat 

designation with appropriate State 

resource agencies in California. A large 

portion of these lands are designated as 

parks or open space and are managed at 

least in part for conservation of natural 

resources and a small proportion (0.9 

percent) occurs within the jurisdiction 

of a single small government entity. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments in that the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the primary 

constituent elements of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. While 

making this definition and 

identification does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than waiting for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This final rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

primary constituent elements within the 

designated areas to assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of 

Piperia yadonii. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Federal Circuit, we do not need 

to prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This assertion was 

upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals (Douglas County v. 

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

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

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

With Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have determined that there are no Tribal 

lands occupied at the time of listing or 

currently that contain the features 

essential for the conservation of Piperia 

yadonii and no Tribal lands that are 

unoccupied that are essential for the 

conservation of P. yadonii. Therefore, 

critical habitat for P. yadonii has not 

been proposed for designation on Tribal 

lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this package is 

the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60437 

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), amend paragraph (a) 

by adding in alphabetical order an entry 

for Family Orchidaceae consisting of 

Piperia yadonii 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) Coastal pine forest (primarily 

Monterey pine) with a canopy coverof 

20 to 70 percent, and a sparse 

herbaceous understory on Baywood 

sands, Narlon loamy fine sands, 

Sheridan coarse sandy loams, Tangair 

fine sands, Santa Lucia shaly clay loams 

and Chamise shaley clay loams 

underlain by a hardpan; or 

(B) Maritime chaparral ridges with 

dwarfed shrubs (primarily Hooker’s 

manzanita) on Reliz shaly clay loams, 

Sheridan sandy loams, Narlon sandy 

loams, Arnold loamy sands and soils in 

the Junipero–Sur complex, Rock 

Outcrop–Xerorthents Association, and 

Arnold–Santa Ynez complex, often 

underlain by rock outcroppings. 

(ii) Presence of nocturnal, shorttongued moths in the families Pyralidae, 

Geometridae, Noctuidae, and 

Pterophoridae. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of this 

rule. 

(4) Critical Habitat Map Units—Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on base maps using aerial imagery from 

the National Agricultural Imagery 

Program; aerial imagery captured June 

2005. Data were project to Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 10, 

North American Datum (NAD) 1983. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

for Piperia yadonii (Map 1) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60438 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2ER24OC07.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60439 

(6) Unit 1: Blohm Ranch, Monterey 

County, California. 

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

scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 611901, 

4079098; 611902, 4079137; 611917, 

4079156; 611974, 4079198; 612002, 

4079216; 612037, 4079247; 612049, 

4079272; 612042, 4079293; 611982, 

4079311; 611952, 4079324; 611943, 

4079354; 611929, 4079419; 611930, 

4079454; 611972, 4079486; 611987, 

4079543; 612012, 4079583; 612011, 

4079594; 612038, 4079619; 612190, 

4079608; 612190, 4079539; 612216, 

4079511; 612324, 4079491; 612343, 

4079504; 612387, 4079471; 612456, 

4079471; 612514, 4079509; 612558, 

4079614; 612558, 4079724; 612489, 

4079761; 612455, 4079807; 612459, 

4079821; 612511, 4079847; 612550, 

4079852; 612589, 4079847; 612625, 

4079832; 612654, 4079812; 612673, 

4079796; 612655, 4079782; 612630, 

4079752; 612603, 4079744; 612647, 

4079619; 612734, 4079691; 612754, 

4079691; 612762, 4079710; 612785, 

4079745; 612846, 4079723; 612827, 

4079702; 612815, 4079690; 612804, 

4079670; 612797, 4079645; 612795, 

4079611; 612746, 4079599; 612716, 

4079588; 612674, 4079586; 612655, 

4079569; 612683, 4079496; 612666, 

4079450; 612629, 4079411; 612638, 

4079375; 612651, 4079353; 612661, 

4079323; 612665, 4079286; 612624, 

4079249; 612624, 4079222; 612635, 

4079209; 612646, 4079194; 612662, 

4079183; 612713, 4079155; 612682, 

4079133; 612642, 4079112; 612585, 

4079109; 612530, 4079112; 612521, 

4079147; 612509, 4079197; 612576, 

4079313; 612588, 4079337; 612589, 

4079337; 612580, 4079358; 612579, 

4079358; 612563, 4079371; 612537, 

4079381; 612497, 4079398; 612474, 

4079403; 612398, 4079417; 612367, 

4079417; 612350, 4079399; 612346, 

4079383; 612357, 4079360; 612369, 

4079340; 612383, 4079316; 612395, 

4079275; 612390, 4079255; 612380, 

4079233; 612350, 4079218; 612286, 

4079200; 612233, 4079178; 612196, 

4079184; 612165, 4079184; 612143, 

4079168; 612128, 4079150; 612128, 

4079119; 612127, 4079094; 611959, 

4078999; 611958, 4078999; 611931, 

4079027; 611911, 4079061; returning to 

611901, 4079098. 

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

scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 611998, 

4078651; 611999, 4078664; 611999, 

4078665; 612044, 4078765; 612187, 

4078803; 612213, 4078825; 612254, 

4078844; 612284, 4078853; 612336, 

4078871; 612385, 4078907; 612423, 

4078925; 612458, 4078940; 612479, 

4078947; 612520, 4078956; 612604, 

4078959; 612662, 4078959; 612704, 

4078960; 612812, 4078958; 612850, 

4078951; 612897, 4078953; 612988, 

4078967; 613045, 4078913; 613060, 

4078936; 613099, 4078949; 613101, 

4078961; 613094, 4078978; 613084, 

4079005; 613073, 4079060; 613062, 

4079129; 613051, 4079222; 613044, 

4079306; 613056, 4079376; 613064, 

4079397; 613082, 4079431; 613099, 

4079501; 613130, 4079602; 613168, 

4079601; 613177, 4079580; 613180, 

4079551; 613198, 4079533; 613212, 

4079488; 613220, 4079438; 613212, 

4079355; 613203, 4079303; 613176, 

4079297; 613165, 4079281; 613166, 

4079253; 613195, 4079224; 613195, 

4079212; 613176, 4079198; 613174, 

4079174; 613177, 4079155; 613196, 

4079139; 613205, 4079091; 613208, 

4079041; 613195, 4078982; 613186, 

4078964; 613182, 4078941; 613177, 

4078906; 613172, 4078906; 613162, 

4078914; 613153, 4078927; 613130, 

4078938; 613103, 4078930; 613086, 

4078918; 613073, 4078906; 613061, 

4078885; 613061, 4078882; 612802, 

4078842; 612765, 4078826; 612627, 

4078767; 612606, 4078767; 612578, 

4078759; 612552, 4078744; 612445, 

4078722; 612278, 4078704; 612253, 

4078701; 612170, 4078702; 612124, 

4078719; 612110, 4078724; 612055, 

4078722; 612071, 4078638; returning to 

611998, 4078651. 

(iii) Note: Unit 1 is depicted on Map 

2 in paragraph (9)(iv) of this entry. 

(7) [Reserved] 

(8) Unit 2: Manzanita Park, Monterey 

County, California. 

(i) Subunit 2a: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 615541, 

4076005; 615651, 4076047; 615859, 

4076125; 616111, 4076311; 616209, 

4076287; 616278, 4076318; 616316, 

4076335; 616416, 4076435; 616503, 

4076520; 616659, 4076565; 616566, 

4076763; 616534, 4076874; 616515, 

4076874; 616454, 4077003; 616562, 

4077020; 616677, 4077028; 616820, 

4077021; 616876, 4077008; 616925, 

4076975; 617013, 4076959; 617053, 

4076962; 617137, 4077017; 617176, 

4077025; 617224, 4077020; 617259, 

4077038; 617271, 4077094; 617286, 

4077095; 617333, 4077097; 617481, 

4077105; 617482, 4077105; 617488, 

4076972; 617540, 4076890; 617565, 

4076771; 617594, 4076701; 617703, 

4076645; 617728, 4076486; 617830, 

4076204; 617787, 4076190; 617729, 

4076197; 617671, 4076233; 617643, 

4076273; 617579, 4076433; 617565, 

4076533; 617468, 4076615; 617445, 

4076631; 617435, 4076657; 617402, 

4076656; 617361, 4076620; 617305, 

4076601; 617309, 4076551; 617377, 

4076484; 617396, 4076450; 617407, 

4076402; 617403, 4076354; 617377, 

4076301; 617341, 4076268; 617287, 

4076245; 617229, 4076245; 617167, 

4076273; 617079, 4076356; 616934, 

4076322; 616910, 4076259; 616884, 

4076229; 616851, 4076207; 616814, 

4076195; 616775, 4076192; 616737, 

4076200; 616702, 4076217; 616655, 

4076267; 616599, 4076383; 616511, 

4076307; 616465, 4076283; 616430, 

4076225; 616388, 4076189; 616213, 

4076130; 616160, 4076127; 616111, 

4076139; 616092, 4076133; 615967, 

4076012; 615897, 4075959; 615835, 

4075931; 615776, 4075922; 615706, 

4075898; 615620, 4075896; 615575, 

4075879; returning to 615541, 4076005. 

(ii) Subunit 2b: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 616488, 

4074150; 616505, 4074167; 616533, 

4074172; 616573, 4074209; 616573, 

4074219; 616555, 4074267; 616557, 

4074347; 616567, 4074401; 616736, 

4074502; 616746, 4074512; 616760, 

4074521; 616779, 4074536; 616804, 

4074543; 616826, 4074543; 616853, 

4074543; 616876, 4074540; 616890, 

4074537; 616915, 4074552; 616943, 

4074575; 617092, 4074595; 617327, 

4074410; 617348, 4074387; 617367, 

4074354; 617374, 4074335; 617379, 

4074301; 617380, 4074258; 617379, 

4074219; 617379, 4074218; 617346, 

4074185; 617298, 4074145; 617219, 

4074073; 617199, 4074072; 617186, 

4074083; 617159, 4074076; 617134, 

4074069; 617131, 4074058; 617114, 

4074034; 616994, 4073984; 616944, 

4073991; 616918, 4074001; 616981, 

4074157; 617003, 4074188; 616891, 

4074250; 616860, 4074246; 616845, 

4074178; 616845, 4074160; 616853, 

4074117; 616747, 4074137; 616712, 

4074146; 616701, 4074171; 616673, 

4074179; 616646, 4074104; 616652, 

4074081; 616642, 4074056; 616620, 

4074046; 616591, 4074041; 616568, 

4074035; 616546, 4074023; 616532, 

4074006; 616531, 4074006; 616490, 

4074054; returning to 616488, 4074150. 

(iii) Subunit 2c: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 616931, 

4073371; 616936, 4073410; 616951, 

4073446; 616975, 4073477; 617003, 

4073500; 617077, 4073542; 617094, 

4073556; 617142, 4073581; 617382, 

4073670; 617411, 4073676; 617450, 

4073676; 617435, 4073712; 617512, 

4073743; 617549, 4073763; 617598, 

4073810; 617636, 4073830; 617694, 

4073860; 617739, 4073865; 617774, 

4073887; 617847, 4073880; 617879, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60440 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

4073885; 617960, 4073894; 618016, 

4073916; 618064, 4073947; 618117, 

4073965; 618279, 4073927; 618244, 

4074007; 618138, 4074038; 618106, 

4074053; 618104, 4074059; 618103, 

4074108; 618076, 4074150; 618071, 

4074184; 618081, 4074204; 618095, 

4074224; 618117, 4074247; 618176, 

4074299; 618229, 4074318; 618261, 

4074316; 618307, 4074300; 618370, 

4074293; 618407, 4074278; 618448, 

4074248; 618468, 4074227; 618507, 

4074173; 618519, 4074146; 618533, 

4074088; 618553, 4074051; 618566, 

4074011; 618572, 4073986; 618574, 

4073952; 618568, 4073913; 618533, 

4073788; 618521, 4073761; 618495, 

4073722; 618496, 4073601; 618482, 

4073567; 618369, 4073570; 618365, 

4073277; 618364, 4073029; 618261, 

4072958; 618212, 4072996; 618157, 

4073061; 618131, 4073086; 618090, 

4073147; 618078, 4073173; 618064, 

4073256; 618067, 4073314; 618081, 

4073377; 618072, 4073413; 618044, 

4073404; 618015, 4073401; 617985, 

4073404; 617957, 4073413; 617931, 

4073426; 617902, 4073452; 617885, 

4073476; 617873, 4073501; 617927, 

4073549; 618040, 4073586; 618063, 

4073730; 618123, 4073826; 618134, 

4073831; 618168, 4073834; 618228, 

4073818; 618235, 4073822; 618191, 

4073875; 618082, 4073823; 618062, 

4073827; 618042, 4073815; 618025, 

4073781; 617967, 4073798; 617970, 

4073818; 617934, 4073823; 617913, 

4073790; 617874, 4073780; 617778, 

4073781; 617786, 4073711; 617701, 

4073663; 617644, 4073637; 617551, 

4073622; 617545, 4073563; 617491, 

4073517; 617470, 4073382; 617262, 

4073305; 617237, 4073287; 617138, 

4073233; 617100, 4073222; 617071, 

4073221; 617032, 4073229; 616997, 

4073246; 616968, 4073272; 616946, 

4073305; 616934, 4073342; returning to 

616931, 4073371. 

(iv) Note: Unit 2 is depicted on Map 

2 in paragraph (9)(iv) of this entry. 

(9) Unit 3: Vierra Canyon, Monterey 

County, California. 

(i) Subunit 3a: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 618886, 

4071622; 618896, 4071742; 619157, 

4071722; 619431, 4071664; 619441, 

4071576; 619441, 4071573; 619385, 

4071569; 619171, 4071553; 619166, 

4071601; 618901, 4071615; 618892, 

4071615; returning to 618886, 4071622. 

(ii) Subunit 3b: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 620707, 

4073069; 620865, 4073146; 620890, 

4073140; 620917, 4073128; 620941, 

4073111; 620961, 4073089; 620977, 

4073064; 620987, 4073037; 620992, 

4072992; 620897, 4072908; 620886, 

4072879; 620778, 4072930; 620784, 

4072971; 620736, 4072950; 620709, 

4072963; returning to 620707, 4073069. 

(iii) Subunit Unit 3c: From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 

620984, 4073724; 621030, 4073752; 

620987, 4073916; 620997, 4073968; 

620996, 4073974; 621079, 4074094; 

621133, 4074174; 621144, 4074209; 

621084, 4074270; 621123, 4074335; 

621127, 4074380; 621146, 4074396; 

621173, 4074395; 621273, 4074227; 

621256, 4074215; 621246, 4074203; 

621206, 4074150; 621177, 4074089; 

621151, 4074025; 621163, 4073968; 

621171, 4073965; 621179, 4073920; 

621159, 4073901; 621160, 4073898; 

621124, 4073845; 621131, 4073829; 

621129, 4073827; 621153, 4073753; 

621073, 4073708; 621025, 4073710; 

returning to 620984, 4073724. 

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

(Map 2) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60441 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2ER24OC07.001</GPH>
60442 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(10) Unit 4: Aguajito, Monterey 

County, California. 

(i) Subunit 4a: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Seaside. Land bounded 

by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 602332, 4048354; 

602347, 4048427; 602354, 4048439; 

602362, 4048452; 602366, 4048456; 

602401, 4048489; 602508, 4048576; 

602697, 4048582; 602735, 4048574; 

602762, 4048562; 602786, 4048545; 

602817, 4048507; 602832, 4048471; 

602858, 4048345; 603034, 4048312; 

603069, 4048294; 603115, 4048262; 

603136, 4048241; 603158, 4048209; 

603171, 4048172; 603173, 4048133; 

603166, 4048094; 603143, 4048051; 

603107, 4048018; 603072, 4048000; 

603024, 4047993; 602966, 4048004; 

602522, 4048105; 602451, 4048153; 

602400, 4048198; 602373, 4048240; 

602351, 4048287; returning to 602332, 

4048354. 

(ii) Subunit 4b: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Seaside. Land bounded 

by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 601574, 4047589; 

601594, 4047664; 601625, 4047701; 

601657, 4047723; 601695, 4047736; 

601778, 4047749; 601839, 4047778; 

601926, 4047801; 601965, 4047804; 

602014, 4047795; 602048, 4047863; 

602058, 4047918; 602064, 4047991; 

602022, 4048044; 602000, 4048080; 

601988, 4048107; 601973, 4048163; 

601962, 4048239; 602022, 4048231; 

602007, 4048253; 602060, 4048243; 

602206, 4048211; 602231, 4048211; 

602246, 4048135; 602250, 4048108; 

602256, 4048082; 602264, 4048071; 

602278, 4048051; 602309, 4048008; 

602318, 4047990; 602345, 4047913; 

602355, 4047883; 602350, 4047838; 

602325, 4047746; 602278, 4047654; 

602262, 4047623; 602199, 4047551; 

602130, 4047497; 602054, 4047470; 

601996, 4047474; 601864, 4047460; 

601773, 4047445; 601743, 4047440; 

601704, 4047440; 601657, 4047454; 

601611, 4047490; 601582, 4047540; 

returning to 601574, 4047589. 

(iii) Note: Unit 4 is depicted on Map 

3 in paragraph (12)(xv) of this entry. 

(11) Unit 5: Old Capitol, Monterey 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by 

the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 599314, 4048918; 

599497, 4049056; 599551, 4048997; 

599551, 4048976; 599552, 4048959; 

599562, 4048939; 599593, 4048923; 

599625, 4048931; 599640, 4048934; 

599655, 4048928; 599675, 4048937; 

599685, 4048913; 599666, 4048844; 

599649, 4048821; 599603, 4048784; 

599561, 4048761; 599516, 4048757; 

599437, 4048777; 599370, 4048808; 

599329, 4048864; returning to 599314, 

4048918. 

(ii) Note: Unit 5 is depicted on Map 

3 in paragraph (12)(xv) of this entry. 

(12) Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula, 

Monterey County, California. 

(i) Subunit 6a (portion between Forest 

Lake Road and Lopez Road): From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 

Monterey. Land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 594289.967, 

4049237.581; 594267.618, 4049251.760; 

594263, 4049271; 594241.397, 

4049281.713; 594230.805, 4049278.096; 

594214.503, 4049291.804; 594166.894, 

4049364.694; 594176.917, 4049369.673; 

594186.521, 4049380.709; 594196.880, 

4049403.089; 594210.082, 4049442.288; 

594216.994, 4049476.435; 594229.293, 

4049570.617; 594241.651, 4049610.586; 

594287.923, 4049701.637; 594338.715, 

4049801.237; 594339.817, 4049802.777; 

594348, 4049799; 594354, 4049797; 

594354, 4049795; 594355, 4049717; 

594451, 4049718; 594500, 4049735; 

594512, 4049669; 594516.717, 

4049635.323; 594514.946, 4049608.292; 

594510.651, 4049578.721; 594505.106, 

4049541.754; 594500.823, 4049516.756; 

594500.581, 4049505.979; 594501.352, 

4049498.500; 594502.886, 4049491.140; 

594505.184, 4049484.320; 594508.514, 

4049476.166; 594512.335, 4049469.471; 

594516.239, 4049464.140; 594520.679, 

4049459.245; 594525.606, 4049454.841; 

594531.898, 4049450.388; 594539.672, 

4049446.666; 594548.703, 4049443.138; 

594554.822, 4049441.050; 594564.127, 

4049438.323; 594572.946, 4049436.064; 

594582.012, 4049431.785; 594588.766, 

4049426.645; 594594.416, 4049420.310; 

594598.418, 4049413.711; 594600.523, 

4049407.460; 594603.006, 4049397.784; 

594604.979, 4049387.614; 594607.304, 

4049381.221; 594609.935, 4049375.747; 

594584, 4049338; 594573, 4049333; 

594557, 4049321; 594544, 4049303; 

594544, 4049289; 594547, 4049272; 

594547, 4049253.000; 594538, 4049237; 

594472, 4049167; 594453, 4049150; 

594446.759, 4049141.029; 594441.513, 

4049144.159; 594348, 4049199; 594355, 

4049219; returning to 594289.967, 

4049237.581. 

(ii) Subunit 6a (portion north of 

Morris Drive): From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Monterey. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 596121, 

4050849; 596117.233, 4050841.631; 

596114.620, 4050840.555; 596109.729, 

4050839.063; 596103.326, 4050838.039; 

596096.103, 4050838.069; 596088.735, 

4050839.482; 596080.383, 4050841.481; 

596072.392, 4050843.713; 596064.531, 

4050846.222; 596058.663, 4050848.305; 

596051.053, 4050851.282; 596044.058, 

4050854.305; 596033.962, 4050859.130; 

596016.951, 4050866.753; 596001.620, 

4050872.806; 595985.651, 4050878.329; 

595968.711, 4050883.356; 595953.831, 

4050887.092; 595943.540, 4050889.313; 

595936.170, 4050889.798; 595925.089, 

4050890.098; 595911.434, 4050889.762; 

595897.656, 4050888.628; 595886.642, 

4050887.141; 595874.824, 4050884.959; 

595863.953, 4050882.401; 595853.066, 

4050879.170; 595840.011, 4050874.858; 

595824.735, 4050869.336; 595809.054, 

4050863.117; 595794.290, 4050856.734; 

595779.189, 4050850.247; 595765.663, 

4050843.950; 595755.155, 4050838.710; 

595744.162, 4050832.891; 595733.283, 

4050826.778; 595724.193, 4050820.701; 

595713.698, 4050813.076; 595702.950, 

4050804.528; 595693.694, 4050796.502; 

595686.111, 4050789.421; 595678.697, 

4050782.009; 595670.691, 4050774.057; 

595662.547, 4050766.912; 595653.948, 

4050760.193; 595643.427, 4050752.976; 

595634.919, 4050747.856; 595625.202, 

4050742.712; 595616.147, 4050738.537; 

595605.957, 4050734.502; 595595.897, 

4050731.216; 595579.392, 4050726.890; 

595558.919, 4050722.484; 595541.632, 

4050719.570; 595525.140, 4050717.462; 

595510.317, 4050716.119; 595497.922, 

4050715.394; 595486.247, 4050715.162; 

595474.894, 4050715.805; 595465.549, 

4050717.074; 595432, 4050797; 595946, 

4051094; 595954, 4051085; 595953, 

4051067; 595953, 4051053; 595956, 

4051034; 595963, 4051011; 595972, 

4050989; 595984, 4050968; 596000, 

4050950; 596035, 4050912; returning to 

596121, 4050849. 

(iii) Subunit 6a (Huckleberry Hill 

portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by 

the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 596121, 4048995; 

596114.435, 4048981.020; 596111.136, 

4048973.151; 596108.142, 4048965.208; 

596105.454, 4048957.114; 596103.071, 

4048948.946; 596100.993, 4048940.704; 

596099.068, 4048932.387; 596097.601, 

4048924.073; 596096.727, 4048918.049; 

596094.961, 4048908.666; 596093.180, 

4048901.722; 596090.941, 4048894.850; 

596090.194, 4048892.559; 596075.586, 

4048855.180; 596044.639, 4048787.944; 

596040.015, 4048778.903; 596034.930, 

4048770.237; 596030.582, 4048763.941; 

596026.078, 4048757.872; 596021.113, 

4048752.103; 596017.649, 4048748.408; 

596014.185, 4048744.789; 596010.566, 

4048741.320; 596004.831, 4048736.381; 

596000.751, 4048733.288; 595998.787, 

4048731.742; 595994.706, 4048728.802; 

595988.352, 4048724.693; 595983.962, 

4048722.131; 595981.689, 4048720.962; 

595979.416, 4048719.795; 595975.023, 

4048717.536; 595970.322, 4048715.427; 

595965.619, 4048713.546; 595963.344, 

4048712.607; 595956.209, 4048710.166; 

595948.918, 4048708.104; 595943.903, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60443 

4048706.982; 595939.037, 4048706.013; 

595934.018, 4048705.196; 595928.997, 

4048704.530; 595923.974, 4048704.018; 

595918.949, 4048703.734; 595835.009, 

4048702.117; 595829.978, 4048702.289; 

595824.945, 4048702.691; 595817.470, 

4048703.522; 595814.875, 4048703.874; 

595809.990, 4048704.734; 595802.505, 

4048706.404; 595800.376, 4048706.944; 

595798, 4048708; 595762, 4048723; 

595761, 4048724; 595739, 4048743; 

595733.894, 4048751.431; 595730.885, 

4048761.683; 595730.310, 4048772.343; 

595731.877, 4048782.112; 595734.506, 

4048792.426; 595734.563, 4048800.960; 

595733.119, 4048807.573; 595728.590, 

4048817.426; 595725.142, 4048826.074; 

595722.591, 4048836.331; 595721.878, 

4048845.617; 595722.245, 4048853.774; 

595723.678, 4048861.865; 595726.474, 

4048870.810; 595729.744, 4048878.237; 

595735.436, 4048887.137; 595741.604, 

4048894.292; 595748.688, 4048901.227; 

595756.387, 4048907.712; 595764.398, 

4048913.668; 595772.266, 4048918.555; 

595779.212, 4048924.270; 595783.576, 

4048929.194; 595788.071, 4048936.101; 

595790.747, 4048942.149; 595792.648, 

4048949.332; 595793.481, 4048956.655; 

595792.933, 4048964.878; 595788.510, 

4048978.999; 595781.840, 4048989.592; 

595773.660, 4048998.948; 595765.407, 

4049005.918; 595876, 4049140; 595883, 

4049146; 595891, 4049158; 595930, 

4049207; 595924, 4049215; 595929, 

4049224; 595759, 4049460; 595749, 

4049453; 595718, 4049483; 595671, 

4049449; 595594, 4049477; 595482, 

4049468; 595462, 4049369; 595546, 

4049277; 595476, 4049214; 595407, 

4049320; 595398, 4049332; 595379, 

4049348; 595360, 4049358; 595245, 

4049402; 595234, 4049415; 595234, 

4049456; 595169, 4049482; 595110, 

4049477; 595063, 4049474; 595058, 

4049541; 595079, 4049565; 595102, 

4049571; 595119, 4049575; 595140, 

4049584; 595150, 4049615; 595159, 

4049642; 595130, 4049674; 595090, 

4049729; 595067, 4049769; 595039, 

4049811; 595027, 4049835; 595027, 

4049851; 595037, 4049882; 595060, 

4049943; 595074, 4050018; 595084, 

4050058; 595081, 4050093; 595057.323, 

4050156.455; 594990.554, 4050158.347; 

594967.842, 4050159.586; 594941.815, 

4050161.163; 594939.740, 4050161.513; 

594954, 4050173; 594969, 4050191; 

594986, 4050216; 594995, 4050239; 

595012, 4050254; 595029, 4050260; 

595045, 4050258; 595063, 4050252; 

595089, 4050249; 595114, 4050261; 

595129, 4050283; 595135, 4050315; 

595127, 4050348; 595118, 4050375; 

595115, 4050400; 595117, 4050427; 

595121, 4050447; 595131, 4050460; 

595146, 4050469; 595168, 4050477; 

595183, 4050486; 595190, 4050498; 

595195, 4050513; 595192, 4050538; 

595193, 4050538; 595299, 4050514; 

595411, 4050490; 595535, 4050334; 

595574, 4050254; 595621, 4050215; 

595661, 4050192; 595699, 4050182; 

595718, 4050203; 595735, 4050221; 

595728, 4050282; 595737, 4050294; 

595873, 4050317; 595931, 4050395; 

595865, 4050456; 595764, 4050427; 

595708, 4050454; 595647, 4050505; 

595634, 4050565; 595491, 4050688; 

595495.370, 4050690.280; 595496.493, 

4050690.314; 595508.038, 4050690.905; 

595520.374, 4050691.863; 595533.349, 

4050693.238; 595546.186, 4050694.972; 

595557.882, 4050696.879; 595569.523, 

4050699.092; 595580.577, 4050701.486; 

595593.215, 4050704.582; 595607.463, 

4050708.587; 595620.527, 4050713.299; 

595632.385, 4050718.427; 595645.083, 

4050724.897; 595657.059, 4050732.019; 

595668.185, 4050739.632; 595678.590, 

4050747.738; 595687.611, 4050755.653; 

595697.731, 4050765.724; 595707.498, 

4050775.246; 595717.389, 4050784.009; 

595727.809, 4050792.397; 595739.767, 

4050801.074; 595750.271, 4050807.692; 

595761.985, 4050814.082; 595774.723, 

4050820.556; 595787.346, 4050826.503; 

595803.552, 4050833.485; 595819.808, 

4050840.511; 595835.796, 4050846.786; 

595850.746, 4050852.106; 595863.800, 

4050856.332; 595878.326, 4050860.141; 

595893.138, 4050862.843; 595909.227, 

4050864.579; 595923.931, 4050865.100; 

595940.058, 4050864.509; 595955.311, 

4050861.023; 595973.024, 4050856.090; 

595989.675, 4050850.553; 596006.554, 

4050844.003; 596020.972, 4050837.619; 

596035.257, 4050830.854; 596050.951, 

4050824.504; 596064.953, 4050819.844; 

596081.870, 4050815.399; 596091.460, 

4050813.429; 596095.984, 4050813.012; 

596102.710, 4050812.958; 596111.615, 

4050813.930; 596118.244, 4050815.455; 

596127.446, 4050818.812; 596132.377, 

4050821.278; 596136.011, 4050823.439; 

596140.866, 4050832.937; 596142.583, 

4050836.764; 596411, 4050626; 596492, 

4050567; 596500, 4050556; 596506, 

4050545; 596510, 4050531; 596514, 

4050505; 596513, 4050484; 596493, 

4050421; 596437, 4050262; 596404, 

4050199; 596364, 4050134; 596358, 

4050092; 596367, 4050043; 596370, 

4050008; 596348, 4049956; 596334, 

4049923; 596339, 4049885; 596365, 

4049836; 596420, 4049812; 596418, 

4049789; 596387, 4049778; 596366, 

4049762; 596351, 4049725; 596344, 

4049706; 596332, 4049696; 596302, 

4049685; 596300, 4049646; 596303, 

4049619; 596311, 4049598; 596310, 

4049570; 596299, 4049556; 596283, 

4049542; 596269, 4049528; 596260, 

4049516; 596258, 4049492; 596272, 

4049460; 596282, 4049429; 596299, 

4049389; 596298, 4049372; 596274, 

4049352; 596258, 4049329; 596166, 

4049101; returning to 596121, 4048995. 

(iv) Subunit 6a (Pescadero Canyon 

portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by 

the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 596202.421, 

4048820.398; 596202.251, 4048823.977; 

596201.106, 4048831.050; 596198.745, 

4048837.881; 596195.323, 4048844.166; 

596189.449, 4048851.720; 596181.453, 

4048858.259; 596174.403, 4048861.914; 

596168.285, 4048863.980; 596159.736, 

4048865.409; 596150.776, 4048866.138; 

596139.514, 4048869.809; 596131.375, 

4048875.207; 596125.615, 4048881.289; 

596120.666, 4048889.708; 596116.970, 

4048898.758; 596115.407, 4048904.538; 

596115.082, 4048907.507; 596114.880, 

4048914.971; 596115.601, 4048920.919; 

596117.073, 4048928.699; 596119.738, 

4048940.221; 596121.820, 4048947.778; 

596123.208, 4048952.171; 596149, 

4048917; 596171, 4048889; 596214, 

4048863; 596295, 4048862; 596318, 

4048787; 596334, 4048726; 596363, 

4048682; 596382, 4048673; 596405, 

4048693; 596418, 4048724; 596441, 

4048708; 596482, 4048660; 596510, 

4048642; 596536, 4048625; 596561, 

4048606; 596597, 4048578; 596651, 

4048555; 596671, 4048551; 596715, 

4048542; 596829, 4048531; 596878, 

4048531; 596924.858, 4048521.004; 

596936.135, 4048509.789; 596944.053, 

4048516.909; 596953, 4048515; 597028, 

4048494; 597074, 4048468; 597083, 

4048454; 597096, 4048441; 597102, 

4048435; 597103.186, 4048434.138; 

597103.230, 4048432.889; 597122.598, 

4048407.776; 597125.173, 4048401.474; 

597125.117, 4048396.220; 597123.538, 

4048391.757; 597121.041, 4048388.365; 

597119.042, 4048386.644; 597115.317, 

4048384.679; 597106.016, 4048382.581; 

597099.373, 4048380.712; 597089.681, 

4048377.084; 597078.307, 4048371.300; 

597062.710, 4048362.620; 597050.160, 

4048348.145; 597042.036, 4048336.655; 

597037.007, 4048327.373; 597034.190, 

4048320.921; 597026.181, 4048298.414; 

597026, 4048298; 597008, 4048250; 

596999, 4048220; 596952, 4048162; 

596941, 4048146; 596932, 4048120; 

596924, 4048090; 596907, 4048062; 

596894, 4048049; 596833, 4048022; 

596756, 4048000; 596740, 4047994; 

596728, 4047994; 596689, 4047954; 

596685, 4047941; 596674, 4047920; 

596662, 4047900; 596648, 4047881; 

596634, 4047862; 596542, 4047755; 

596522, 4047739; 596506, 4047734; 

596458, 4047725; 596449, 4047723; 

596433, 4047716; 596297, 4047645; 

596283, 4047635; 596220, 4047585; 

596204, 4047568; 596197, 4047557; 

596190, 4047539; 596163, 4047442; 

596143, 4047425; 596133, 4047420; 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60444 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

596115, 4047406; 596103, 4047389; 

596086, 4047360; 596074, 4047347; 

596049, 4047337; 596017, 4047368; 

595973, 4047400; 595910, 4047426; 

595872, 4047443; 595867, 4047523; 

595864, 4047594; 595870, 4047667; 

595880, 4047728; 595887.445, 

4047772.169; 595896.900, 4047807.905; 

595923.997, 4047835.258; 595982.485, 

4047890.602; 596001.110, 4047917.832; 

596009.167, 4047943.965; 596008.899, 

4047989.340; 596008.385, 4048016.218; 

595998.060, 4048035.162; 595980.074, 

4048045.653; 595962.288, 4048046.253; 

595934.059, 4048032.734; 595906.862, 

4048017.073; 595878.916, 4047992.590; 

595843.991, 4047964.452; 595820.544, 

4047955.446; 595781.236, 4047949.719; 

595706.444, 4047946.467; 595701, 

4047953; 595605, 4048051; 595588, 

4048057; 595526, 4048090; 595504, 

4048118; 595501, 4048132; 595502, 

4048132; 595524, 4048140; 595565, 

4048157; 595630, 4048169; 595634, 

4048198; 595676, 4048233; 595673, 

4048267; 595698, 4048322; 595840, 

4048309; 595893, 4048311; 595982, 

4048326; 595982, 4048327; 595973, 

4048417; 595974, 4048417; 596135, 

4048438; 596251, 4048453; 596208, 

4048594; 596220, 4048604; 596231, 

4048624; 596230, 4048641; 596215, 

4048727; 596218, 4048782; 596209, 

4048811; returning to 596202.421, 

4048820. 

(v) Subunit 6a (portion between 

Sunridge Road and Spruance Road): 

From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 

Monterey. Land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 595662.607, 

4048782.410; 595606.350, 4048793.214; 

595593.683, 4048794.978; 595581.024, 

4048795.981; 595576.755, 4048796.238; 

595555.424, 4048796.153; 595501.980, 

4048792.589; 595494.224, 4048791.208; 

595486.477, 4048789.065; 595479.043, 

4048786.088; 595472.075, 4048782.353; 

595464.363, 4048777.086; 595456.518, 

4048769.991; 595445.525, 4048758.212; 

595435.299, 4048745.984; 595425.842, 

4048733.156; 595417, 4048719.878; 

595406.232, 4048701.550; 595399.076, 

4048687.299; 595394.765, 4048677.576; 

595363.443, 4048602.869; 595358.414, 

4048589.176; 595349.695, 4048563.960; 

595302.138, 4048562.504; 595301.073, 

4048566.064; 595297.396, 4048581.566; 

595294.480, 4048597.228; 595292.475, 

4048613.053; 595291.233, 4048628.962; 

595290.750, 4048644.956; 595291.183, 

4048660.884; 595291.979, 4048671.483; 

595293.081, 4048682.085; 595294.641, 

4048692.616; 595296.926, 4048706.356; 

595298.350, 4048715.285; 595299.470, 

4048724.287; 595300.132, 4048733.285; 

595300.642, 4048742.281; 595300.693, 

4048751.348; 595300.573, 4048762.165; 

595301.386, 4048771.317; 595305.088, 

4048780.957; 595309.740, 4048787.409; 

595316.836, 4048793.277; 595326.841, 

4048797.960; 595339.744, 4048802.370; 

595357.214, 4048807.211; 595374.849, 

4048810.835; 595397.370, 4048813.599; 

595411.528, 4048814.747; 595424.137, 

4048818.163; 595434.605, 4048823.670; 

595484.115, 4048850.827; 595495.005, 

4048858.109; 595502.701, 4048864.899; 

595506.769, 4048869.134; 595512.925, 

4048877.278; 595517.565, 4048884.797; 

595521.729, 4048894.062; 595538.984, 

4048938.367; 595541.571, 4048946.013; 

595543.020, 4048952.734; 595543.674, 

4048962.493; 595542.650, 4048972.310; 

595539.803, 4048981.725; 595534.506, 

4048992.180; 595527.091, 4049001.317; 

595516.619, 4049011.257; 595500.614, 

4049025.555; 595483.704, 4049038.929; 

595460.208, 4049055.429; 595441.798, 

4049066.653; 595430.144, 4049073.305; 

595423.232, 4049078.257; 595412.777, 

4049088.386; 595406.135, 4049094.828; 

595402.263, 4049100.499; 595400.808, 

4049107.949; 595402.256, 4049114.822; 

595406, 4049121; 595417, 4049126; 

595438, 4049124; 595459, 4049129; 

595480, 4049130; 595500, 4049127; 

595517, 4049127; 595527, 4049130; 

595546, 4049127; 595578, 4049111; 

595609, 4049086; 595612, 4049077; 

595622, 4049064; 595638, 4049045; 

595658, 4049031; 595679, 4049021; 

595703, 4049013; 595731, 4049004; 

595754, 4048992; 595761.777, 

4048985.026; 595769.192, 4048975.966; 

595773.393, 4048968.089; 595775.156, 

4048960.261; 595774.489, 4048951.721; 

595771.678, 4048944.147; 595767.928, 

4048938.772; 595761.284, 4048933.289; 

595755.383, 4048929.567; 595748.428, 

4048924.690; 595741.782, 4048919.436; 

595733.484, 4048911.953; 595727.456, 

4048905.944; 595720.990, 4048898.177; 

595715.891, 4048890.806; 595711.118, 

4048881.535; 595706.533, 4048868.989; 

595704.225, 4048857.307; 595703.595, 

4048845.414; 595704.641, 4048833.541; 

595707.208, 4048821.913; 595710.348, 

4048813.567; 595713.185, 4048805.066; 

595713.125, 4048796.760; 595710.460, 

4048789.721; 595706.253, 4048784.418; 

595698.078, 4048779.603; 595689.711, 

4048778.368; 595677.796, 4048779.563; 

returning to 595662.607, 4048782. 

(vi) Subunit 6a (portion west of 

Spruance Road): From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Monterey. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 595323, 

4049123; 595368.117, 4049101.720; 

595382.240, 4049092.277; 595410.579, 

4049065.011; 595418.415, 4049059.232; 

595432.679, 4049050.857; 595444.489, 

4049043.827; 595456.001, 4049036.335; 

595467.211, 4049028.460; 595483.502, 

4049015.918; 595493.961, 4049007.120; 

595504.272, 4048997.940; 595515.056, 

4048987.393; 595520.624, 4048979.912; 

595524.072, 4048971.342; 595525.218, 

4048964.116; 595524.719, 4048954.207; 

595521.124, 4048943.526; 595504.298, 

4048899.506; 595499.078, 4048889.315; 

595491.417, 4048879.402; 595484.782, 

4048873.157; 595475.253, 4048866.804; 

595424.286, 4048839.148; 595418.003, 

4048835.465; 595406.606, 4048832.596; 

595395.796, 4048831.866; 595381.337, 

4048830.335; 595367.040, 4048828.043; 

595348.039, 4048823.794; 595338.773, 

4048821.253; 595324.957, 4048816.757; 

595314.336, 4048812.602; 595302.378, 

4048805.459; 595294.389, 4048797.600; 

595286.759, 4048784.944; 595283.230, 

4048773.401; 595282.287, 4048762.267; 

595282.561, 4048751.299; 595282.244, 

4048738.649; 595281.317, 4048726.144; 

595279.779, 4048713.631; 595276.920, 

4048696.686; 595275.215, 4048685.544; 

595273.573, 4048668.688; 595272.604, 

4048646.202; 595272.943, 4048629.292; 

595274.197, 4048612.469; 595275.541, 

4048601.208; 595277.188, 4048590.103; 

595279.292, 4048579.003; 595281.851, 

4048568.060; 595283.456, 4048561.932; 

595253, 4048561; 595225, 4048650; 

595206, 4048683; 595203, 4048704; 

595204, 4048727; 595225, 4048781; 

595225, 4048914; 595222, 4048941; 

595134, 4049009; 595111, 4049027; 

595081, 4049069; 595056, 4049144; 

595117, 4049145; 595138, 4049144; 

595159, 4049140; 595178, 4049134; 

595194, 4049129; 595211, 4049127; 

595228, 4049128; 595275, 4049132; 

595292, 4049131; 595309, 4049128; 

returning to 595323, 4049123. 

(vii) Note: Unit 6a is depicted on Map 

3 in paragraph (12)(xiv), and in detail on 

Map 4 in paragraph (12)(xv) of this 

entry. 

(viii) Subunit 6b (east portion): From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 

Monterey. Land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 593541.388, 

4048770.432; 593510.848, 4048805.177; 

593532.068, 4048818.876; 593548.960, 

4048826.486; 593570.875, 4048833.182; 

593586.397, 4048837.747; 593608.312, 

4048838.660; 593624.139, 4048838.965; 

593639.357, 4048836.834; 593659.141, 

4048830.747; 593680.751, 4048822.529; 

593727.015, 4048798.788; 593782.106, 

4048772.004; 593790.904, 4048768.133; 

593778.000, 4048727.000; 593772.946, 

4048696.679; 593772.083, 4048696.721; 

593715.333, 4048703.457; 593701.565, 

4048705.802; 593683.913, 4048711.031; 

593675.394, 4048714.531; 593667.133, 

4048718.602; 593659.167, 4048723.224; 

593651.533, 4048728.376; 593634.547, 

4048741.500; 593627.799, 4048746.427; 

593624.257, 4048748.773; 593616.962, 

4048753.136; 593609.188, 4048757.152; 

593605.208, 4048758.975; 593597.085, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60445 

4048762.239; 593592.951, 4048763.677; 

593588.773, 4048764.984; 593584.556, 

4048766.159; 593580.298, 4048767.201; 

593575.860, 4048768.137; 593571.387, 

4048768.928; 593566.891, 4048769.572; 

593562.377, 4048770.069; 593557.849, 

4048770.418; 593548.770, 4048770.669; 

593544.229, 4048770.572; returning to 

593541.388, 4048770.432. 

(ix) Subunit 6b (west portion): From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 

Monterey. Land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 593522.950, 

4048768.330; 593488.310, 4048763.587; 

593468.619, 4048760.890; 593462.417, 

4048760.143; 593456.341, 4048759.609; 

593450.817, 4048759.302; 593488.543, 

4048788.440; 593498.544, 4048796.096; 

returning to 593522.950, 4048768.330. 

(x) Subunit 6c (east portion): From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 

Monterey. Land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 593678.031, 

4049656.997; 593676.816, 4049655.549; 

593657.430, 4049624.243; 593645.847, 

4049580.582; 593642.129, 4049535.973; 

593642.297, 4049535.749; 593636.462, 

4049526.819; 593633.154, 4049523.033; 

593630.739, 4049520.709; 593628.167, 

4049518.558; 593625.453, 4049516.590; 

593622.609, 4049514.816; 593618.129, 

4049512.535; 593613.436, 4049510.732; 

593610.214, 4049509.805; 593606.936, 

4049509.104; 593501.928, 4049490.433; 

593498.284, 4049510.927; 593545.854, 

4049574.412; 593548.648, 4049578.141; 

593566.979, 4049609.782; 593647.949, 

4049681.627; returning to 593678.031, 

4049656.997. 

(xi) Subunit 6c (west portion): From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 

Monterey. Land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 593686.191, 

4049823.525; 593718.176, 4049820.816; 

593726.510, 4049844.038; 593779, 

4049814.000; 593781.227, 4049812.692; 

593779.785, 4049811.940; 593744.860, 

4049740.544; 593707.564, 4049692.197; 

593617.531, 4049767.523; 593559.935, 

4049774.021; 593531, 4049764.000; 

593486, 4049731.000; 593474, 

4049707.000; 593460, 4049690.000; 

593428, 4049662.000; 593408, 

4049649.000; 593383, 4049632.000; 

593351.999, 4049611.999; 593334.206, 

4049625.645; 593326.515, 4049621.339; 

593318.546, 4049617.573; 593306.155, 

4049612.974; 593297.659, 4049610.629; 

593284.662, 4049608.222; 593271.487, 

4049607.167; 593258.273, 4049607.477; 

593245.162, 4049609.148; 593232.293, 

4049612.162; 593219.803, 4049616.488; 

592978.342, 4049724.383; 592966.840, 

4049728.949; 592959.041, 4049731.592; 

592954.985, 4049732.755; 592941.323, 

4049735.664; 592939, 4049733.000; 

592930, 4049733.000; 592918, 

4049760.000; 592920, 4049789.000; 

592936.305, 4049827.951; 593018.581, 

4049826.666; 593098.417, 4049780.812; 

593207.036, 4049823.766; 593283.323, 

4049815.508; 593358.944, 4049812.254; 

593444.705, 4049788.911; 593458.448, 

4049795.812; 593602.831, 4049855.126; 

593635.133, 4049863.106; 593661.279, 

4049846.810; returning to 593686.191, 

4049823.525. 

(xii) Subunit 6d: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Monterey. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 591851, 

4048564; 591855, 4048576; 591861, 

4048580; 591868, 4048583; 591873, 

4048588; 591879, 4048594; 591884, 

4048602; 591887, 4048610; 591889, 

4048617; 591889, 4048625; 591891, 

4048632; 591918, 4048685; 591925, 

4048690; 591925, 4048690; 591935, 

4048688; 591945, 4048672; 591953, 

4048660; 591961, 4048648; 591969, 

4048636; 592120, 4048437; 592141, 

4048411; 592144, 4048397; 592144, 

4048351; 592144, 4048317; 592136, 

4048297; 592116, 4048287; 592116, 

4048287; 592116, 4048287; 592096, 

4048293; 592073, 4048322; 592062, 

4048334; 592050, 4048344; 592038, 

4048354; 591992, 4048388; 591951, 

4048418; 591951, 4048418; 591933, 

4048448; 591931, 4048452; 591928, 

4048456; 591924, 4048461; 591920, 

4048466; 591920, 4048466; 591912, 

4048476; 591908, 4048485; 591907, 

4048489; 591905, 4048496; 591902, 

4048503; 591899, 4048510; 591895, 

4048517; 591891, 4048523; 591886, 

4048529; 591882, 4048534; 591877, 

4048538; 591872, 4048543; 591866, 

4048548; 591860, 4048552; 591855, 

4048556; returning to 591851, 4048564. 

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

scale quadrangle Monterey. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 595552, 

4051784; 595527, 4051833; 595413, 

4051790; 595404, 4051837; 595404, 

4051843; 595404, 4051846; 595403, 

4051858; 595401, 4051873; 595399, 

4051888; 595397, 4051903; 595395, 

4051917; 595392, 4051932; 595389, 

4051947; 595386, 4051961; 595382, 

4051976; 595379, 4051990; 595375, 

4052005; 595371, 4052019; 595370, 

4052021; 595370, 4052022; 595366, 

4052033; 595362, 4052047; 595357, 

4052061; 595352, 4052075; 595346, 

4052089; 595341, 4052103; 595334, 

4052116; 595332, 4052121; 595330, 

4052124; 595325, 4052130; 595324, 

4052130; 595323, 4052138; 595292, 

4052402; 595329, 4052407; 595339, 

4052409; 595340, 4052409; 595342, 

4052409; 595344, 4052409; 595345, 

4052409; 595347, 4052409; 595348, 

4052409; 595349, 4052409; 595351, 

4052409; 595352, 4052409; 595354, 

4052409; 595356, 4052409; 595358, 

4052409; 595359, 4052409; 595361, 

4052409; 595363, 4052409; 595365, 

4052409; 595366, 4052409; 595367, 

4052410; 595368, 4052410; 595370, 

4052410; 595372, 4052410; 595373, 

4052411; 595375, 4052411; 595377, 

4052412; 595379, 4052412; 595380, 

4052412; 595382, 4052413; 595384, 

4052413; 595385, 4052414; 595387, 

4052415; 595388, 4052415; 595390, 

4052416; 595392, 4052416; 595393, 

4052417; 595395, 4052418; 595397, 

4052419; 595398, 4052419; 595400, 

4052420; 595401, 4052421; 595403, 

4052422; 595404, 4052423; 595406, 

4052424; 595407, 4052425; 595409, 

4052426; 595410, 4052427; 595412, 

4052428; 595413, 4052429; 595414, 

4052429; 595425, 4052438; 595487, 

4052473; 595545, 4052519; 595569, 

4052552; 595574, 4052559; 595785, 

4052448; 595838, 4052420; 595829, 

4052400; 595798, 4052339; 595762, 

4052253; 595751, 4052224; 595736, 

4052189; 595703, 4052125; 595688, 

4052091; 595683, 4052085; 595672, 

4052071; 595634, 4052047; 595633, 

4052045; 595632, 4052043; 595631, 

4052041; 595630, 4052039; 595628, 

4052037; 595627, 4052035; 595626, 

4052033; 595625, 4052030; 595624, 

4052028; 595623, 4052026; 595622, 

4052024; 595621, 4052021; 595621, 

4052019; 595620, 4052017; 595619, 

4052015; 595618, 4052012; 595618, 

4052010; 595617, 4052008; 595616, 

4052005; 595616, 4052003; 595615, 

4052001; 595615, 4051998; 595614, 

4051996; 595614, 4051993; 595614, 

4051991; 595613, 4051989; 595613, 

4051986; 595613, 4051984; 595613, 

4051981; 595612, 4051979; 595612, 

4051977; 595612, 4051974; 595612, 

4051972; 595612, 4051969; 595612, 

4051967; 595613, 4051964; 595613, 

4051962; 595613, 4051960; 595613, 

4051957; 595613, 4051955; 595614, 

4051952; 595614, 4051950; 595614, 

4051948; 595615, 4051945; 595615, 

4051943; 595616, 4051940; 595617, 

4051938; 595617, 4051936; 595618, 

4051933; 595618, 4051931; 595619, 

4051929; 595620, 4051926; 595621, 

4051924; 595625, 4051914; 595629, 

4051904; 595634, 4051892; 595638, 

4051882; 595643, 4051871; 595655, 

4051846; 595657, 4051842; 595663, 

4051824; returning to 595552, 4051784. 

(xiv) Note: Map of Unit 6 (Map 3) 

follows: 

(xv) Note: Detail map of Subunit 6a 

(Map 4) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
60446 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2ER24OC07.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60447 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2ER24OC07.003</GPH>
60448 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(13) Unit 7: Point Lobos Ranch, 

Monterey County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Monterey and Soberanes 

Point. Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 595261, 4040950; 595269, 4041010; 

595302, 4041071; 595344, 4041106; 

595399, 4041136; 595410, 4041165; 

595402, 4041291; 595387, 4041367; 

595377, 4041400; 595365, 4041437; 

595365, 4041463; 595389, 4041491; 

595453, 4041513; 595516, 4041504; 

595570, 4041472; 595597, 4041500; 

595597, 4041536; 595602, 4041585; 

595627, 4041649; 595635, 4041663; 

595716, 4041696; 595759, 4041700; 

595783, 4041693; 595801, 4041670; 

595825, 4041613; 595827, 4041585; 

595813, 4041551; 595807, 4041531; 

595812, 4041518; 595844, 4041470; 

595915, 4041508; 595889, 4041596; 

595951, 4041638; 595966, 4041648; 

595986, 4041664; 595850, 4041803; 

595867, 4041802; 595891, 4041808; 

595893, 4041869; 595904, 4041919; 

595915, 4041930; 595910, 4041935; 

595945, 4041988; 595990, 4042022; 

596063, 4042063; 596142, 4042098; 

596156, 4042104; 596211, 4042114; 

596241, 4042109; 596269, 4042011; 

596275, 4041978; 596276, 4041975; 

596317, 4041764; 596343, 4041583; 

596373, 4041510; 596515, 4041436; 

596694, 4041433; 596927, 4041428; 

597048, 4041584; 597068, 4041628; 

597136, 4041714; 597204, 4041766; 

597235, 4041783; 597291, 4041803; 

597332, 4041812; 597381, 4041807; 

597425, 4041787; 597461, 4041754; 

597484, 4041711; 597492, 4041663; 

597484, 4041614; 597467, 4041579; 

597441, 4041550; 597408, 4041528; 

597363, 4041511; 597341, 4041491; 

597323, 4041415; 597248, 4041313; 

597288, 4041280; 597098, 4041279; 

597103, 4041079; 597060, 4041079; 

597045, 4041092; 596996, 4041118; 

596889, 4041130; 596702, 4041138; 

596646, 4041140; 596553, 4041137; 

596503, 4041119; 596451, 4041086; 

596363, 4041006; 596211, 4040900; 

596003, 4040843; 595913, 4040829; 

595905, 4040827; 595884, 4040824; 

595865, 4040825; 595753, 4040829; 

595629, 4040826; 595611, 4040841; 

595574, 4040832; 595575, 4040825; 

595539, 4040822; 595537, 4040822; 

595497, 4040858; 595465, 4040822; 

595393, 4040831; 595371, 4040840; 

595366, 4040838; 595297, 4040891; 

returning to 595261, 4040950. 

(ii) Note: Unit 7 is depicted on Map 

5 in paragraph (14)(ii) of this entry. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60449 

(14) Unit 8: Palo Colorado, Monterey 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangle Soberanes Point. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 598818, 

4027785; 598823, 4027824; 598834, 

4027852; 598855, 4027884; 598877, 

4027904; 599017, 4027985; 599111, 

4028022; 599176, 4028075; 599179, 

4028121; 599198, 4028182; 599233, 

4028238; 599262, 4028268; 599316, 

4028304; 599373, 4028315; 599431, 

4028304; 599479, 4028271; 599498, 

4028249; 599518, 4028204; 599522, 

4028146; 599508, 4028099; 599476, 

4028056; 599471, 4028019; 599511, 

4027964; 599527, 4027921; 599543, 

4027880; 599551, 4027832; 599546, 

4027793; 599531, 4027757; 599514, 

4027733; 599484, 4027707; 599430, 

4027685; 599362, 4027687; 599326, 

4027702; 599282, 4027741; 599266, 

4027766; 599135, 4027707; 599026, 

4027647; 598988, 4027637; 598949, 

4027637; 598893, 4027655; 598855, 

4027686; 598830, 4027728; 598821, 

4027756; returning to 598818, 4027785. 

(ii) Note: Map of Units 7 and 8 (Map 

5) follows: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2ER24OC07.004</GPH>
60450 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * Dated: October 5, 2007. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 07–5136 Filed 10–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES2