[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 18, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61546-61578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8600]
[[Page 61545]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat for Piperia yadonii (Yadon's piperia); Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 18, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 61546]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU34
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for Piperia Yadonii (Yadon's Piperia)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the endangered Piperia yadonii (Yadon's
piperia) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). In total, approximately 2,306 acres (ac) (930 hectares (ha))
fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat
designation. The proposed critical habitat is located in Monterey
County, California.
DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until
December 18, 2006. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by December 4,
2006.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (VFWO), 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office, at the above address.
3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
[email protected]. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section below
for file format and other information about electronic filing.
4. You may fax your comments to (805) 644-3958.
5. You may go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at our VFWO, at the above address (telephone (805) 644-1766).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, VFWO, at
the above address (telephone (805) 644-1766, ext. 319; facsimile (805)
644-3958).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments
particularly are sought concerning:
(1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including
whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the
species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Piperia
yadonii habitat, what areas should be included in the designations that
were occupied at the time of listing and contain the features that are
essential for the conservation of the species and why, and what areas
that were not occupied at the listing are essential to the conservation
of the species and why;
(3) Our mapping methodology and criteria used for determining
critical habitat as well as any additional information on features
essential for the conservation of the species;
(4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(5) The existence of conservation agreements, management plans, or
strategies that should be considered in determining whether to exclude
lands from the designation. If the Secretary determines the benefits of
excluding lands outweigh the benefits of including them, lands will be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation;
(6) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any
impacts on small entities; and
(7) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES
section). Please submit electronic comments to [email protected] in ASCII
file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of
encryption. Please also include ``Attn: Yadon's piperia'' in your e-
mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of
your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that
we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling
our VFWO at phone number (805) 644-1766, ext. 333. Please note that the
e-mail address [email protected] will be closed out at the termination of
the public comment period.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their names and/or home addresses, etc. but if you wish us to consider
withholding this information you must state this prominently at the
beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present a rationale
for withholding this information. This rational must demonstrate that
disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of
exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be
released. We will always make submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses,
available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and
materials received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Office at the above address.
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and
Implementing the Act
Attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful
conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat
plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often
misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, there are significant
limitations on the regulatory effect of designation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act. In brief, (1) designation provides additional
protection to habitat only where there is a federal nexus; (2) the
protection is relevant only when, in the absence of designation,
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat would in
fact take place (in other words, other statutory or regulatory
protections, policies, or other factors relevant to
[[Page 61547]]
agency decision-making would not prevent the destruction or adverse
modification); and (3) designation of critical habitat triggers the
prohibition of destruction or adverse modification of that habitat, but
it does not require specific actions to restore or improve habitat.
Currently, only 475 species, or 36 percent of the 1,311 listed
species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service, have
designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,311
listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section
7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9
protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the
States, the section 10 incidental take permit process, and cooperative,
nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. The Service believes
that it is these measures that may make the difference between
extinction and survival for many species.
In considering exclusions of areas proposed for designation, we
evaluated the benefits of designation in light of Gifford Pinchot Task
Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004)
(hereinafter Gifford Pinchot). In that case, the Ninth Circuit
invalidated the Service's regulation defining ``destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.'' In response, on December 9, 2004,
the Director issued guidance to be considered in making section 7
adverse modification determinations. This proposed critical habitat
designation does not use the invalidated regulation in our
consideration of the benefits of including areas in this proposed
designation. The Service will carefully manage future consultations
that analyze impacts to designated critical habitat, particularly those
that appear to be resulting in an adverse modification determination.
Such consultations will be reviewed by the Regional Office prior to
finalizing to ensure that an adequate analysis has been conducted that
is informed by the Director's guidance.
On the other hand, to the extent that designation of critical
habitat provides protection, that protection can come at significant
social and economic cost. In addition, the mere administrative process
of designation of critical habitat is expensive, time-consuming, and
controversial. The current statutory framework of critical habitat,
combined with past judicial interpretations of the statute, make
critical habitat the subject of excessive litigation. As a result,
critical habitat designations are driven by litigation and courts
rather than biology, and made at a time and under a timeframe that
limits our ability to obtain and evaluate the scientific and other
information required to make the designation most meaningful.
In light of these circumstances, the Service believes that
additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those
actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need
of protection.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have
subjected the Service to an increasing series of court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements, which complying with now consumes
nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the Service with
little ability to prioritize its activities to direct scarce listing
resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically
urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result,
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left
the Service with limited ability to provide for public participation or
to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on
listing and critical habitat proposals, due to the risks associated
with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn
fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse
impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, and is very
expensive, thus diverting resources from conservation actions that may
provide relatively more benefit to imperiled species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These costs, which are not
required for many other conservation actions, directly reduce the funds
available for direct and tangible conservation actions.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule and that
clarify the species description and biology provided in the final
listing rule. For more information on Piperia yadonii, refer to the
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1998
(63 FR 43100).
Piperia yadonii is a perennial herb in the Orchidaceae (Orchid
family), which produces one or two basal strap-shaped leaves that grow
from an underground tuber (the storage organ which persists when the
species is not present aboveground). P. yadonii leaves emerge in late
fall or winter, after the soils are saturated by the onset of
California's wet season rains. Small tubers produce a single leaf,
which may resemble a grass blade when small (Graff 2006, p. 12). Larger
tubers produce two basal leaves, often 4 to 6 inches (10 to 15
centimeters (cm)) long and about 1 inch (2 to 3 cm) wide, at maturity.
Emergence of the single flowering stalk above ground typically begins
in April (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 2). As the inflorescence grows to its
full height, usually 8 to 20 inches (20 to 50 cm) tall, the plant's
basal leaves wither (Morgan and Ackerman 1990, p. 209). Flowering
occurs in the summer, typically from June to August. The average number
of flowers recorded on inflorescences in a recent study was 56 (Doak
and Graff 2001, p. 3). Similar to other orchid species, only a small
proportion of the plants that produce leaves in a given year will
produce an inflorescence. Recorded flowering rates for P. yadonii
plants that have one or more leaves range from 0.4 to 22 percent, and
vary by site and year (Allen 1996, unpaginated; Doak and Graff 2001,
pp. 14-15; EcoSystems West Consulting Group (Ecosystems West) 2006, pp.
71-72). Like other orchid species, the ability to produce flowering
stalks may be a function of tuber size (indicative of energy reserves),
rather than age (Wells 1981, pp. 291-293; Rasmussen 1995, pp. 197-200).
Consequently, an individual that flowers in one year may not be able to
flower in subsequent years.
Piperia yadonii requires pollinators to produce seeds. Flowers that
are not visited by pollinators do not produce seed. Flowers that are
visited by pollinators and receive self pollen from other flowers on
the same plant will produce seeds, although they produce
[[Page 61548]]
significantly fewer seeds than result from cross pollinations between
plants. This is an expression of inbreeding depression in seed set
(Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 12-15). The presence of inbreeding depression
in later stages, such as seed germination and establishment, has not
been studied in P. yadonii. In Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) forest
habitats, the most abundant insects that have been collected and
observed visiting P. yadonii flowers are nocturnal short-tongued moths
in the families Pyralidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, and Pterophoridae.
Six moth species in these families had Piperia yadonii pollen attached
to their bodies, confirming that they transport, and can potentially
transfer, pollen between flowers (Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 8-25).
Nocturnal moths are a commonly reported pollinator of other Piperia
species (Ackerman 1977a, pp. 256-257). None of the nocturnal moth
visitors are thought to be rare. Of the moths carrying P. yadonii
pollen, two species are known to be generalist feeders in the larval
stage and are found on a variety of native plants and agricultural
crops. Three species have more exclusive larval feeding habits, having
been recorded on native shrubs (e.g., coyote brush (Baccharis
pilularis); California lilac (Ceanothus spp.)) and members of the mint
family (Lamiaceae) (Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 8-25; Graff 2005). A
bumble bee (Bombus sp.) and one mosquito (species unknown) were also
collected among P. yadonii flowering plants and had pollen attached to
their bodies (Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 8-25; Graff 2005). Bumblebees
have been identified as a diurnal visitor by other observers, as well
(Yadon 2001, unpaginated). In maritime chaparral, rates of insect
visitation to Piperia yadonii populations were so low that no
pollinator data was collected (Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 8-37).
Nonnative earwigs (Forficula auricularia) have been documented to
consume substantial amounts of pollen from P. yadonii flowers in
several populations found in Monterey pine forest (Doak and Graff 2001,
p. 9). It is not known if this pollen theft results in depressed seed
set.
Each successfully maturing seed capsule of Piperia yadonii can
contain hundreds of seeds, so a single plant can produce several
thousand seeds (Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 13-31). Orchid seeds are
typically minute, with a large volume of air compared to the size of
the embryo. These attributes make the seeds particularly buoyant,
promoting wind dispersal (Healey et al. 1980, pp. 508, 516; Rasmussen
1995, pp. 7-10). The distance seeds routinely travel is unknown. In a
study of an epiphytic (tree growing) orchid, most seeds landed within
meters of the plant (Ackerman et al. 1996, pp. 195-197). However,
others have noted that orchids may be one of the earliest colonizers of
new island habitats hundreds of kilometers from other land masses,
suggesting that occasional very long distance dispersal can occur
(Healy et al. 1980, p. 516). Data on many terrestrial orchids indicates
low genetic differentiation between populations, suggesting that either
seeds or pollen are moving between populations (Ackerman 1997b).
In general, orchid seeds lack a sufficient internal food source to
sustain a germinating seedling. Instead, their nutritional needs are
fulfilled by an association with a soil fungus (a mycorrhizal
association) (Hadley 1982, pp. 96-101). Nothing specific has been
published on the mycorrhizal fungal symbionts of Piperia yadonii, nor
their distribution in the forest and maritime chaparral soils where
this orchid grows. In other temperate North American orchid species,
the primary fungal associates are described as belonging to the genus
Rhizoctonia or being Rhizoctonia-like fungi (Hadley 1982, pp. 96-99;
Hadley and Pegg 1989, pp. 61-63). The specificity of the association
between orchids and their mycorrhizal fungi is a field of active study
(e.g., Otero et al. 2002, pp. 1852-1858). No broad consensus is
apparent on whether or not the distributions of temperate North
American orchids might be limited by their dependence on specific
fungal symbionts. Once the mycorrhizal association between the orchid
seed and its fungal partner is established, the orchid tuber continues
to develop underground. If not established, orchid seeds typically fail
to germinate or seedlings die at an early subterranean phase of
development (Rasmussen and Whigham 1998, pp. 61-63). The length of time
needed for the subterranean P. yadonii tuber to develop, prior to the
emergence of the first leaf above ground, is unknown. In other orchid
species, this subterranean phase lasts from 1 to 15 years, with 2 to 4
years the most common among those reported (Wells 1981, pp. 282-283;
Rasmussen 1995, pp. 197-200; Rasmussen and Whigham 1998, p. 50).
In addition to its essential mycorrhizal fungal associates, Piperia
yadonii is also affected by other fungal infections (tentatively
identified as Rhizoctonia spp.) that can result in reproductive
failure. In a study of several populations, fewer of the diseased
plants set seed, compared to healthy plants, and diseased plants set
significantly fewer seed than healthy plants (Doak and Graff 2001, p.
14). Populations differed in their disease incidence. In 2003 at
Manzanita County Park, of the 100 flowering individuals sampled, 94
percent appeared affected by disease and consequently set no to little
fruit (2 to 4 small seed capsules) (Graff 2003). Of 90 P. yadonii
plants that flowered and were examined on the Monterey Peninsula, about
9 percent exhibited tip wilt and complete reproductive failure
(EcoSystems West 2006, p. 57).
Orchid seeds are not known to have any physical dormancy mechanisms
(Baskin and Baskin 1998, pp. 146-147; 482-484) and are thought to be
relatively short-lived, although recent research indicates that some
species may form persistent soil seedbanks (Whigham et al. 2006, pp.
24-30). After seed production, mature Piperia yadonii plants persist as
dormant tubers in the soil through the late summer and early fall. The
tuber is the primary form of persistence from year to year and it
likely regenerates annually during the growing season, as in related
orchids (USFWS 1996, p. 7). Leaves emerge again above ground after the
first significant fall rains saturate the soil. No evidence of asexual
reproduction through tuber division has been reported or was present in
an examination of 13 excavated tubers (Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 12-17).
Following emergence of the first leaf above ground, an unknown
number of years are required before the tubers are large enough to
flower. Annually, a proportion of the tubers in any given population
remain dormant underground, producing neither leaves nor flowers. This
prolonged dormancy appears to be fairly common among orchids, and in
some species, individuals remain dormant for multiple years before
appearing again above ground (Hutchings 1987, pp. 715-716; Kery et al.
2005, pp. 311-319). We have no demographic data on the proportion of
plants that actually reach flowering size in their lifetime or the
average number of years an individual may flower in a life time. The
lifespan of Piperia yadonii has not been studied. Few studies of other
temperate terrestrial orchids have tracked populations for a decade or
more; those that have, note that some individuals continued to appear
above ground for the duration of the 8 to15 years of study (Wells 1981,
pp. 289-292; Hutchings 1987, pp. 719-720; USFWS 1996, p. 9).
Within occurrences, Piperia yadonii plants often grow in dense
clusters, sometimes containing hundreds of
[[Page 61549]]
plants. Up to 70 plants per square meter were recorded during a habitat
characterization in Monterey pine forest (EcoSystems West 2006, p. 55).
Allen (1996, unpaginated) noted that the continuous canopy of Monterey
pine forest enables more continuous plant aggregations than maritime
chaparral, where the chaparral shrubs are separated by bare ground.
The recorded range of Piperia yadonii extends from the hills around
Prunedale and in the Elkhorn Slough watershed, south to the Palo
Colorado Canyon area of the Big Sur coast, in northern Monterey County,
California. This is the same geographic range known at the time of
listing eight years ago (63 FR 43100). Surveys conducted within this
range since that time have provided more detailed information on the
distribution of plants at specific locations and about annual
variability in plant expression above ground.
Allen (1996, unpaginated) estimated that about 70 percent of the
total known population of Piperia yadonii is found near the center of
this range in the Monterey pine forest of the Monterey Peninsula.
Recent surveys on the Monterey Peninsula identified greater
concentrations of P. yadonii in forested areas of the Monterey
Peninsula (Zander Associates and WWD Corporation 2004, all pp.;
EcoSystems West 2005, p. 3), so the proportion of plants in that area
may be greater. While censuses of comparable detail to those recently
conducted on the Monterey Peninsula have not been completed in maritime
chaparral, Allen's estimate is not likely to have overestimated the
importance of the Monterey Peninsula forests to this species. P.
yadonii is primarily found in two habitat types, central maritime
chaparral and Monterey pine forest. It also grows in the Bishop Pine--
Gowen cypress (Pinus muricata--Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana)
forest community which occurs within the Monterey pine forest on the
Monterey Peninsula and at Point Lobos Ranch.
Piperia yadonii is present in some locations where disturbance has
occurred previously, such as abandoned dirt roads, old trails or trail
margins, and cut slopes created by past road construction (Allen 1996,
unpaginated; Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 4-5; Graff et al. 2003), but that
are not affected by ongoing foot and vehicle traffic. Graff (2006, p.
5) has noted that when surrounding forest canopies or undergrowth is
dense, P. yadonii may be primarily found along trails and abandoned
roads, presumably in response to greater available light levels.
The primary threats to Piperia yadonii are loss and fragmentation
of habitat from commercial, agricultural, residential, and intensive
recreational development (e.g., golf courses, manicured ball fields).
The historical distribution of P. yadonii prior to being described in
1990 is unknown, but it likely included much of the historical extent
of the Monterey pine forest where the species is presently known to
occur. Logging of the Monterey pine forest began in the late 1700s with
the arrival of the Spanish in the Monterey Bay area; over the last 200
years, the forest continued to be logged and converted to agriculture
and other human uses. Recent estimates of the historical and current
extent of Monterey pine forest indicate that 37 to 50 percent of the
Monterey pine forest once found in the Monterey region has been
eliminated (Huffman and Associates 1994, p. iii; Jones and Stokes
Associates 1994a, pp. 8-14; Monterey County Planning and Building
Inspection Department (Monterey County) 2005, p. 3-72). On the Monterey
Peninsula, the proportion of Monterey pine forest eliminated is
greater. On those marine terraces and old dune soils that underlie most
of the Peninsula, less than 20 percent of the historical extent of
Monterey pine forest is estimated to remain, much of it in fragmented
and increasingly isolated stands (Jones and Stokes Associates 1994a,
pp. 14, 34-37).
Although no comparable acreage estimates have been made for
maritime chaparral habitats in the northern distribution of P. yadonii,
these shrublands have been reduced and fragmented by rural residential
development and conversion of native vegetation to row crops on deeper
valley soils. The extent of maritime chaparral destruction in the
Monterey Bay area was recognized and discussed 30 years ago (Griffin
1978, p. 78). To the west of Prunedale, most development is apparent in
the valleys, leaving the vegetation on the shallow soils of ridgelines
relatively intact, but isolated (aerial photography; Van Dyke et al.
2001, pp. 221, 226-227). North and east of Prunedale, greater amounts
of residential development appear to have occurred on the ridgetops.
Consequently, maritime chaparral patches exist there as smaller
fragments than they do to the west (mapping by Van Dyke and Holl 2003).
Maritime chaparral in the Elkhorn-Prunedale region of Monterey
County is also changing as a result of plant succession and an absence
of fire. A recent study of maritime chaparral sites first sampled 30
years ago found that changes in community composition, seedling
abundance, and canopy cover are occurring after a 70-year absence of
fire. Shrub diversity appears to be declining and canopy cover is
increasing as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) or large canopied
manzanitas become dominant (Van Dyke et al. 2001, pp. 225-227). This
conversion is likely to be slower in the shallow ridgetop soils where
Piperia yadonii occurs than it is on slopes and more mesic (moist)
sites, but coast live oak are present now even on these ridgelines (Van
Dyke et al. 2001, pp. 226-227). Continued fragmentation and isolation
of ridgetop maritime chaparral habitats in a matrix of residential
development will reduce the likelihood that fire can be used as a
management tool in these habitats in the future.
Other threats that have been identified include invasive nonnative
plant species and factors that reduce reproduction, such as herbivory,
disease, and mowing for fuel reduction purposes. The most common
invasive plant species found in Piperia yadonii habitat throughout its
range are jubata or pampass grass (Cortaderia jubata) and French broom
(Genista monspessulana). These are large plants that can form high
dense canopies, reducing light and space. Jubata grass invades openings
in maritime chaparral in the Elkhorn-Prunedale region and the
Huckleberry Hill Reserve on the Monterey Peninsula. French broom is
more common in Monterey pine forest habitats and was dense in Piperia
yadonii occurrences at the Naval Postgraduate School and Point Lobos
Ranch, when abatement was initiated (Graff 2006, appendices IV, VI;
Greening Associates 1999, p. 4). Other invasive nonnative plants
documented from occurrences of P. yadonii include rattlesnake grass
(Briza maxima) and iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis) (Allen 1996; Doak and
Graff 2001, pp. 4-5). Approximately 20 invasive nonnative plant species
have been identified spreading in the Monterey pine forests in Monterey
County (Rogers 2002, pp. 58-59).
Herbivory of Piperia yadonii leaves and flowering stalks by deer
and rabbits has been frequently reported (Allen 1996, unpaginated,
Yadon 1997; Doak and Graff 2001, pp. 10-17). Deer are abundant on the
Monterey Peninsula and reports from a decade ago estimated that
herbivory removed about 85 percent of the flowering stalks of uncaged
plants (Allen 1996, unpaginated). In a study of reproduction in seven
occurrences, herbivory and disease combined caused reproductive failure
in about 73 percent of monitored plants (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 17).
More recent herbivory estimates from both maritime chaparral and
Monterey pine forest range from 0 percent to 78
[[Page 61550]]
percent, with the highest herbivory rates (73 percent in 2003, 78
percent in 2005) in the Monterey pine forest (Graff 2006, p. 11,
Appendix VI). EcoSystems West (2006, pp. 54-58) reported that about 26
percent of vegetative P. yadonii and about 62 to 70 percent of
flowering stalks were browsed in Monterey pine forest on the Monterey
Peninsula.
Mowing for fuel reduction purposes has repeatedly removed the
flowering stalks of some Piperia yadonii occurrences in the Monterey
Peninsula region (Yadon 1997, 2000, unpaginated; Environmental Science
Associates 2004, pp. 3-14, 3-15, 3-16). Expanded fuel breaks are
planned for the maritime chaparral in which one occurrence is found at
Manzanita Park.
Previous Federal Actions
For more information on previous Federal actions concerning Piperia
yadonii, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on August 12, 1998 (63 FR 43100). At the time of listing, we
found the designation of critical habitat for P. yadonii to be not
prudent because: (1) There would be no additional benefit beyond
listing from doing so, and (2) it would increase the risk of
overcollection. In August 2004, we published a recovery plan for P.
yadonii and four other plant taxa from Monterey County, California
(USFWS 2004).
On August 13, 2004, our decision not to designate critical habitat
for Piperia yadonii was challenged in Center for Biological Diversity
and the California Native Plant Society v. Norton (Case No. C 04-3240
(N.D.Cal.). On December 21, 2004, the Court issued a settlement
agreement, in which the Service agreed to submit for publication a
proposal to withdraw the existing ``not prudent'' determination
together with a new proposed critical habitat determination for P.
yadonii by October 5, 2006.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
we designate critical habitat at the time a species is listed as
endangered or threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state
that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or
both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened
by taking or other activity and the identification of critical habitat
can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species or (2)
such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the
species. In our August 12, 1998 final rule (63 FR 43100), we determined
that designation of critical habitat for P. yadonii was not prudent
based on both reasons. Specifically, we stated that P. yadonii occurs
predominantly on private lands where Federal involvement is unlikely.
Furthermore, we stated that a majority of P. yadonii individuals are on
lands of a single private landowner, who commissioned the studies that
documented the species' range and population status; because this
landowner is well aware of the presence and location of the species on
its property, there would be no additional benefit to the species from
providing the same location information to the landowner.
In addition, we stated that publication of precise maps and
descriptions of critical habitat would make these plants more
vulnerable to incidents of vandalism which could contribute to the
decline of the species and therefore such designation would provide
little conservation benefit over that provided by listing. However, in
the past few years, several of our determinations that the designation
of critical habitat would not be prudent have been overturned by court
decisions. For example, in Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt,
the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii ruled that
the Service could not rely on the ``increased threat'' rationale for a
``not prudent'' determination without specific evidence of the threat
to the species at issue (2 F. Supp. 2d 1280 [D. Hawaii 1998]).
Additionally, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S.
Department of the Interior, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit ruled that the Service must balance, in order to invoke
the ``increased threat rationale,'' the threat against the benefit to
the species of designating critical habitat (113 F. 3d 1121, 1125 [9th
Cir. 1997]).
We have reconsidered our evaluation of the threats posed by
vandalism and overcollection in the prudency determination. Since the
time of listing in 1998, we have gathered information indicating that
populations of Piperia yadonii continue to be directly and indirectly
affected by destruction and alteration of habitat due to residential
development. However, we have no credible information that this species
has been threatened from vandalism and overcollection, nor can we say
that critical habitat would not be a benefit to the species.
Accordingly, we withdraw our previous determination that the
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for P. yadonii, and
determine that the designation of critical habitat is prudent for P.
yadonii. At this time, we have sufficient information necessary to
identify specific areas that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species and are, therefore, proposing critical
habitat (see ``Methods'' sections below for a discussion of information
used in our reevaluation).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act means
to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point when
measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such
methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on
Federal actions that ``may affect'' critical habitat. The designation
of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a
refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow government or public access to private
lands. Section 7 is a purely protective measure and does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat
within the area occupied by the species must first have features that
are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs
of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the
[[Page 61551]]
primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special
management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing
management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below,
such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to
section 4(b)(2).) Areas outside the geographic area occupied by the
species at the time of listing may only be included in critical habitat
if they are essential for the conservation of the species. Accordingly,
when the best available scientific data do not demonstrate that the
conservation needs of the species require additional areas, we will not
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing. An area currently
occupied by the species but was not known to be occupied at the time of
listing will likely, but not always, be essential to the conservation
of the species and, therefore, typically included in the critical
habitat designation.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)
and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the
Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance
to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best
scientific data available. They require Service biologists to the
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When
determining which areas are critical habitat a primary source of
information is generally the listing package for the species.
Additional information sources include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, and other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in
accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines
issued by the Service.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons,
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available in determining areas that contain features
that are essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. This
includes information from the final listing rule; data from research
and survey observations published in peer-reviewed articles; reports
and survey forms prepared for Federal, state, local agencies, and
private corporations; site visits; regional Geographic Information
System (GIS) layers, including soil and species coverages; and data
submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). We have
also reviewed available information that pertains to the ecology, life
history, and habitat requirements of this species. This material
included information and data in peer-reviewed articles, reports of
monitoring and habitat characterizations, reports submitted during
section 7 consultations, our recovery plan, and information received
from local species experts. We are not proposing to designate as
critical habitat any areas outside the geographical area presently
occupied by the species.
The range of Piperia yadoni extends from the Los Lomos area near
the Santa Cruz County border in the north to approximately 15 miles (25
kilometers) south of the Monterey Penninsula near Palo Colorado Canyon
(Morgan and Ackerman 1990, 208-210; Allen 1996, unpaginated). This
range has been divided into the following 5 geographic areas for the
purposes of recovery planning efforts: (1) The Monterey Peninsula, (2)
the area interior of the Monterey Peninsula, (3) northern Monterey
County-Prunedale-Elkhorn, (4) the Point Lobos Ranch area, and (5) the
Palo Colorado Canyon area (USFWS 2004, pp. 16-26, 50-52). We make
reference to these geographic areas when describing the locations of P.
yadoni populations and lands proposed for critical habitat designation.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (PCEs) that
are essential to the conservation of the species, and within areas
occupied by the species at the time of listing, that may require
special management considerations and protection. These include, but
are not limited to space for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of
the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The specific PCEs required for Piperia yadonii are derived from the
biological needs of P. yadonii as described in the Background section
of this proposal and below.
Space for Individual and Population Growth, Including Sites for Seed
Dispersal and Germination
Piperia yadonii depends on adequate space for growth, reproduction
between near and far neighbors, and for movement of seeds via wind to
unoccupied microsites within populations, to population boundaries, and
to new sites. Once dispersed, seeds must settle into sites with
characteristics appropriate for germination, including the presence of
fungal associates necessary for post-germination development. Maritime
chaparral and pine forest communities in which P. yadonii and its
fungal symbionts occur, exhibit considerable
[[Page 61552]]
variability in vegetation density, species composition, and unvegetated
gaps such that microsites appropriate for germination and growth are
distributed unevenly throughout this mosaic.
Plant communities such as maritime chaparral, Monterey pine forest,
and coast live oak woodland are dynamic; in the absence of fire,
maritime chaparral succeeds to oak woodland in mesic sites and to low-
diversity stands of large old-age manzanitas in drier sites (Van Dyke
et al. 2001). The patchy distribution of P. yadonii in a given forest
or chaparral site in a single year is a reflection of the habitat
conditions at that particular time. Habitat sites that contain the same
soil characteristics and plant community may become suitable and
occupied in future decades as vegetation structure changes due to shrub
or tree death and growth or herbivore population sizes or movements. In
the same manner, a currently occupied location may diminish in value
due to these changing conditions. The mosaic of vegetation height,
density, and species composition in a given area provides opportunities
for gene flow between occurrences of P. yadonii through seed dispersal
on prevailing winds, and promotes continuation of ecosystem processes,
such as the biological interactions necessary to maintain forest canopy
and dominant manzanita species, and pollinator assemblages.
Maintaining large and small populations of Piperia yadonii is
essential for the long-term conservation of the species. Large
occurrences of plants and those with higher densities of individuals,
are more likely to attract insect pollinators necessary for the
production of viable seed and promote gene flow (Kunin 1997, p. 232-
233), to withstand periodic extreme environmental stresses (e.g.,
drought, disease), and may act as important ``source'' populations to
allow recolonization of surrounding areas following periodic extreme
environmental stresses. Small populations of plants may serve as
corridors for gene flow between larger populations, and may harbor
greater levels of genetic diversity than predicted for their size
(Lesica and Allendorf 1995, pp. 172-175).
Nutritional and Physiological Requirements, Including Light and Soil
Requirements
Piperia yadonii occurs in maritime chaparral, a coastal shrub
association dominated by endemic species of manzanitas. It is most
often found on ridges where exposed sandstone or decomposed granitic
soils are shallow and where the dominant manzanita species are low-
growing (preliminary measurements indicate an average of 6 inches (15
cm) tall (Graff 2006, pp. 5-6)), allowing P. yadonii leaves to receive
filtered sun and the inflorescence to extend above the decumbent
manzanita branches. In the Elkhorn-Prunedale area, the transition from
the 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
(Arctostaphylos pajaroensis) and chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) are
other dominant shrubs in maritime chaparral there. On and south of the
Monterey Peninsula, several manzanitas (A. hookeri, A. tomentosa, and
A. glandulosa ssp. zacaensis) are reportedly the dominant shrubs among
which it grows (Graff 2006, p. 4; EcoSystems West 2006, p. 64). Other
species of manzanitas (A. glandulosa) and manzanita hybrids are the
dominant low-growing forms at the southernmost occurrence of P. yadonii
near Palo Colorado Canyon, where Hooker's manzanita is absent (Norman
1995, Graff 2006, p. 4).
In Monterey pine forest, Piperia yadonii grows through pine needle
duff where the native herbaceous vegetation cover is typically sparse,
but diverse, and the Monterey pine canopy is of moderate density (20 to
70 percent, on the Monterey Peninsula), providing filtered sunlight to
the forest floor (EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 43, 62-68). The understory
plant species most frequently associated with P. yadonii in the
Monterey pine forest are the perennial herb common sanicle (Sanicula
laciniata), leafy bent grass (Agrostis pallens), and spindly forms of
bush monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus). In a habitat characterization
of P. yadonii on the Monterey Peninsula, microsites occupied by P.
yadonii had five times greater cover by other native geophytes
(perennial plants with underground storage organs, such as bulbs,
tubers or corms), such as golden brodiaea (Tritelia ixiodes), blue
dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), and mariposa lilies (Calochortus spp.)
than did microsites lacking P. yadonii. Where a maritime chaparral
understory exists with scattered pines, P. yadonii occurs with other
native herbs in gaps between the shrubs. It occurs in similar gaps
associated with trails and fire roads in the Bishop pine--Gowen cypress
forest stand within the Monterey pine forest on the Monterey Peninsula.
It is not typically found in areas with a coast live oak canopy or
those with high understory cover of shrubs or vines (EcoSystems West
2006, pp. 50-51, 62-68).
It is likely that in some areas the composition and cover of the
Monterey pine herbaceous understory may remain relatively stable for
decades due to abiotic factors (e.g., soils, hydrology) and in others
these appropriate microhabitats may be ephemeral, disappearing as
shrubs establish or increase in size and appearing elsewhere when
understory fire; burrowing, trailing, and browsing animals; or shrub
death, create new gaps. Areas should be of sufficient size to sustain
the plant communities in which Piperia yadonii grows, and have
appropriate soil moisture, and mycorrhizal associates (Perry et al.
1990, pp. 266-274; Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Noss 2001, pp. 581-586).
Although soils supporting native mycorrhizal symbionts are believed
to be a requirement for successful growth in Piperia yadonii, this is
not a habitat feature easily observable in the field or about which we
have specific information. Therefore, we have not included it as a
primary constituent element of critical habitat, but assume that
mycorrhizal associates will be represented in areas which encompass
appropriate vegetation and soils.
Piperia yadonii occupies soils that are primarily characterized as
sands, fine sands, and sandy loams by the Soil Conservation Service
mapping (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1978, maps;
EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 23-26). Soils where P. yadonii occurs in the
Monterey pine forest are typically characterized as sands, rather than
loams and, on the Monterey Peninsula, soils are frequently underlain by
a claypan that is 1 to 5 feet (0.3 to 1.5 m) below the surface (USDA
1978, pp. 53-54; Jones and Stokes Associates 1994b, pp. 16-21;
EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 23-26)). In a comparison of Monterey pine
forest sites on and east of the Monterey Peninsula, P. yadonii was
present in soils that tended to have lower organic matter, lower
nutrient levels, and lower summer soil moisture levels than areas where
it was absent (EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 43, 59-61). It is not known if
P. yadonii actually prefers nutrient-poor soils or if it is
[[Page 61553]]
unable to compete with the denser understory vegetation found on more
nutrient-rich soils. P. yadonii presence is correlated with the drier
of the forest soils. It is not found in riparian areas or wetlands on
the Monterey Peninsula (Allen, unpaginated; EcoSystems West 2006, pp.
59-61, 64-65).
In the maritime chaparral at its northern distributional limit,
Piperia yadonii occurs on ridges supporting shallow, weathered, sandy
soils with sandstone outcrops, where shrubs are small-statured (USDA
1978, pp. 10-11; Allen 1996 unpaginated; Graff 2006, p. 4). The average
shrub canopy height in areas where P. yadonii occurs on these ridges is
about 6 inches, according to preliminary sampling (Graff 2006, pp 5-6).
Soils in this region are typically derived from weathered marine
deposits. These sites often support cryptogamic soil crusts (soil
surface communities primarily composed of cyanobacteria, lichens,
mosses, and algae) (Graff 2006, p. 4). Cryptogamic crusts have been
found to increase nutrient availability to plants, reduce erosion,
improve plant-water relations, and provide germination and seedling
growth sites (USDA 1997, pp. 8-11).
Pollinators
Piperia yadonii also requires pollinators for the production of
viable seeds (PCE 2) (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 15). Size and
configuration of plant populations, and associated flowering species,
may influence the degree to which pollinators are attracted to an area
(Sipes and Tepedino 1995, p. 937). The abundance of pollinators may
affect reproductive success and persistence of small plant populations
(Groom 1998, pp. 487-495). As a group, the reproductive output of
orchids is limited by pollinator availability or activity (Tremblay et
al. 2005, p. 24) and P. yadonii had reduced seed set under natural
pollination as compared to manual pollination (Doak and Graff 2001, p.
12-13), an indication that seed set in this species may be pollinator
limited. When populations of flowering individuals are small or
flowering is restricted to a specific season, the individual plant
population may not be able to sustain a population of insect
pollinators by itself (Groom 1998, pp. 493-495); therefore, habitats
that support a variety of other flowering plant species that provide
nectar and pollen sources throughout spring and summer for pollinator
populations are likely needed to sustain P. yadonii populations.
Doak and Graff (2001, p. 13) found that pollinators of Piperia
yadonii are predominantly nocturnal, short-tongued moths e.g., in the
families Pyralidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, Pterophoridae) that are
most active between the hours of 8:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Some of these
pollinator species (e.g., Agrotis ipsilon, Udea profundalis) are
generalists regarding larval host plants, but others (e.g., Elpiste
marcescaria, Drepanulatrix baueraia) feed on specific host plants in
the larval stage (e.g., coyote bush, wild lilac, respectively). P.
yadonii exists within several plant communities which sustain insect
pollinators. They do so by supporting those flowering plant species
needed by pollinators as larval hosts or nectar sources (e.g.,
coyotebush, wild lilac, and species in the mint family).
Primary Constituent Elements for Piperia yadonii
Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known
physical and biological features (Primary Constituent Elements; PCEs)
essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. All areas proposed as
critical habitat for P. yadonii are occupied, within the species'
historic geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support life
history functions for this species.
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined
that the Piperia yadonii PCEs are:
1. A vegetation structure providing filtered sunlight on sandy
soils:
a. Pine forest (primarily Monterey pine) with a canopy cover of 20
to 70 percent, and a sparse herbaceous understory on Baywood sands,
Narlon loamy fine sands, Sheridan coarse sandy loams, Tangair fine
sands, Santa Lucia shaly clay loams and Chamise shaley clay loams
underlain by a hardpan.
b. Maritime chaparral ridges with dwarfed shrub (primarily Hooker's
manzanita) on Reliz shaly clay loams, Sheridan sandy loams, Narlon
sandy loams, Arnold loamy sands and soils in the Junipero-Sur complex,
Rock Outcrop-Xerorthents Association, and Arnold-Santa Ynez complex
often underlain by rock outcroppings.
2. Presence of nocturnal, short-tongued moths in the families
Pyralidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, and Pterophoridae.
This proposed designation is designed for the conservation of those
areas containing PCEs necessary to support the life history functions
that were the basis for the proposal. Because not all life history
functions require all the PCEs, not all proposed critical habitat will
contain all the PCEs.
Units are designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to
support one or more of the species's life history functions. Some units
contain all PCEs and support multiple life processes, while some units
contain only a portion of the PCEs necessary to support the species'
particular use of that habitat. Where a subset of the PCEs is present
at the time of designation, this rule protects those PCEs and thus the
conservation function of the habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available in determining areas that contain features
that are essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. This
includes information from the final listing rule; data from research
and survey observations published in peer-reviewed articles; reports
and survey forms prepared for Federal, state, and local agencies, and
private corporations; site visits; regional Geographic Information
System (GIS) layers, including soil and species coverages; and data
submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). We are
not proposing to designate as critical habitat any areas outside the
geographical area presently occupied by the species.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the
ecology, life history, and habitat requirements of this species. This
material included information and data in peer-reviewed articles,
reports of monitoring and habitat characterizations, reports submitted
during section 7 consultations, our recovery plan, and information
received from local species experts.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat on lands within the
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing and
continue to be occupied to date. All proposed units contain habitat
with features essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. We are
not proposing any units that are unoccupied.
We used a multi-step process to identify and delineate proposed
critical habitat units. First, we mapped and reviewed all known
occurrences of Piperia yadonii, using the best available information.
To be meaningful for the purposes of determining proposed critical
habitat units, survey information had to be evaluated in light of the
species' life history. Not all individuals produce leaves or flower
every year. A below-ground P. yadonii tuber can do one of four things
in any given year: die, remain dormant, send up leaves but not
[[Page 61554]]
flower, or leaf out and flower (Graff 2006, pp. 7 and 8). The length of
tuber dormancy is not known, but may be from 1 to 4 years based upon
data from other orchid species with a similar life history. The P.
yadonii flower is diagnostic (with regard to other Piperia species),
and the proportion of vegetative plants that flower in any given year
has been estimated to be from 0.4 percent to 22 percent (Graff 2006, p.
8), with the lowest estimates coming from the chaparral community. Thus
it is difficult to precisely determine the extent and abundance of the
species both within individual occurrences and throughout its
geographic range. Because a positive identification requires a
flowering individual, we did not include any occurrences in this
proposed designation that had not been identified during the flowering
season as Piperia yadonii.
Occurrence information included the results of several different
types of surveys for the species in various locations within its range.
Allen (1996, unpaginated) conducted a two consecutive year survey to
better understand the extent of the range, distribution, and overall
population size of the species. The Allen (1996) study estimated
populations of Piperia yadonii within polygons overlaid on topographic
maps, but did not indicate areas where the author looked for, but did
not find occurrences. Graff (2006, (e.g., pp. 14 and 15) developed a
long-term monitoring program for P. yadonii, using specific test plots
in several areas featuring known occurrences, and georeferenced
individual patches of P. yadonii. Various other surveys were designed
and conducted for specific purposes, including assessing potential land
subdivisions/development projects and potential state highway
realignment. In the case of Pebble Beach Company lands on the Monterey
Peninsula and areas inland from the peninsula, intensive surveys have
been conducted in multiple years to aid in planning their Del Monte
Forest Preservation and Development Plan.
Next, we evaluated which occupied areas were most likely to
contribute to the long-term persistence of the species. We focused on
locations with larger occurrences in larger areas of contiguous native
habitat (greater than 5 acres (2 ha), see below) that are more likely
to support intact ecosystem processes and biotic assemblages, provide
areas for population growth, and opportunities for colonization of
adjacent areas. These areas also have the highest likelihood of
persisting through the environmental extremes that characterize
California's climate and of retaining the genetic variability to
withstand future introduced stressors (e.g., new diseases, pathogens,
or climate change). We believe that areas less than 5 acres in size
that are surrounded by high-density development (e.g., office parks,
residential neighborhoods, commercial buildings, and parking lots) and
have become isolated as a result of development may contribute to the
conservation of the species through educational, research, and other
mechanisms, but overall have a lower potential for long-term
preservation and lesser conservation value to the species. Therefore,
we did not further consider these areas in the proposal. Although we
have not included these areas within the proposed critical habitat
designation, because they are, occupied they may still receive indirect
protection under the Act.
We then selected sites from among the data set resulting from the
above evaluation that contain the features essential to the
conservation of Piperia yadonii, need special management, and would
result in a designation that: (a) Represents the geographic range of
the species; (b) captures peripheral populations; (c) includes the
range of plant communities and soil types in which P. yadonii is found;
(d) encompasses the elevation range over which the species occurs; and
(e) maintains the connectivity of occurrences that grow on a continuous
ridgeline.
Species and plant communities that are protected across their
ranges are expected to have lower likelihoods of extinction (Soule and
Simberloff 1986; Scott et al. 2001, p. 1297-1300); therefore, essential
habitat should include multiple locations across the entire range of
the species to prevent range collapse. Protecting peripheral or
isolated populations is highly desirable because they may contain
genetic variation not found in core populations. The genetic variation
results from the effects of population isolation and adaptation to
locally distinct environments (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, pp. 754-757;
Fraser 2000, pp. 49-51; Hamrick and Godt, pp. 291-295). We also sought
to include the range of plant communities, soil types, and elevational
gradients in which P. yadonii is found to preserve the genetic
variation that may result from adaptation to local environmental
conditions, documented in other plant species (e.g. see Hamrick and
Godt pp. 299-301; Millar and Libby 1991 pp. 150, 152-155). Finally,
habitat fragmentation can result in loss of genetic variation (Young et
al. 1996, pp. 413-417); therefore, we sought to maintain connectivity
between patches of plants distributed along ridgetops.
In determining the extent of lands necessary to ensure the
conservation and persistence of this species, we identified all areas
which contain those biological and physical features essential to the
conservation of the species and are either already protected, managed,
or otherwise unencumbered by conflicting use (e.g. undeveloped County
or City parks, proposed preservation areas). These populations are most
likely to persist into the future and to contribute to the species'
survival and recovery. We added ownership categories to the proposed
designation in the following manner: First we included undeveloped
Federal and State lands, then local agency and private lands with
recognized resource conservation emphasis (e.g., lands owned by a
conservation-oriented organization, undeveloped County or City parks),
and finally other agency and private lands.
As a result of the above process, we did not include all occupied
areas in proposed critical habitat. About 13 occurrences or parts of
occurrences, beyond those in the Pebble Beach Company's proposed
development areas, are known to the Service and are not included in
proposed critical habitat: two of these are in the 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 were not
included in the designation due to the above discussed reasons of small
size, lack of surrounding native or appropriate habitat, or because we
lacked evidence that they are extant or accurately identified.
Mapping
To map the proposed units of critical habitat, we overlaid Piperia
yadonii records on soil series data, topographic contours and, where
available, vegetation data (e.g., maritime chaparral mapped by Van Dyke
and Holl (2003)). Although P. yadonii occurs predominately on soils
with a substantial sand component (e.g., Arnold and Narlon series), the
mapped distribution of such soils extends well beyond the species'
range. Piperia yadonii also frequently occurs in areas of relatively
low relief (typically less than 30 percent slope) along ridge tops or
in patches of low relief amid steeper slopes. Using digital elevation
data, we mapped the distribution of P. yadonii relative to areas with
low relief and found that topographic relief, when combined with soils
and plant
[[Page 61555]]
community data, is a more accurate predictor of the species
distribution. Therefore, as a first step, we tailored proposed unit
boundaries using geomorphologic features, vegetation data, and soil
series data.
In areas dominated by maritime chaparral, such as the Elkhorn-
Prunedale area, Piperia yadonii occurs primarily among low-growing
manzanitas on ridgelines underlain by sandstone. In areas with this
geomorphic setting, we determined that digitizing the centerline of the
ridgetops where P. yadonii occurs and adding 150 meters (492 feet) on
either side of the centerline most consistently encompassed known P.
yadonii occurrences, appropriate soils, and suitable habitat contiguous
with known occurrences. The resulting 300 meter-(984 foot-) wide area
encompasses the flat or gently sloping ridgetops with low-growing
manzanitas and the adjacent slopes supporting maritime chaparral. These
ridgetops support the P. yadonii occurrences, areas for population
expansion, germination sites for wind-dispersed seeds, and appropriate
soils. When maritime chaparral did not extend 150 meters from the
centerline of the ridgetop, we used closer geographic (e.g., streams)
and manmade features (e.g., roads, development boundaries, farmed land)
to constrain and more accurately delineate a unit area boundary.
In areas dominated by Monterey pine forest, particularly on the
Monterey Peninsula, topographic features are less distinct, and
consequently less useful for mapping purposes than in the chaparral-
covered hills of northern Monterey County. The Monterey Peninsula's
Monterey pine and Gowen cypress-Bishop pine forest stands exist in an
expanse of residential and recreational development. Additional
residential and recreational development is proposed. As a consequence,
on the Monterey Peninsula, we began by delineating the occurrences as
defined by the most recent set of comprehensive surveys. We then
encompassed the forested stands and fragments that were within existing
or proposed conservation or open space areas. In two locations where
forest connections still existed between forest stands, we included
these to help maintain continued gene flow between Yadon's piperia
occurrences. We also used landscape features such as streams, roads,
and developed areas to delineate unit boundaries on appropriate soils.
Using the above criteria we identified 8 units that contain
features essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii: Three units
are in north Monterey County in the Elkhorn-Prunedale area; one is on
the Monterey Peninsula; two units are interior from the Monterey
Peninsula; one unit is at Point Lobos Ranch; and the most southerly
unit is near Palo Colorado Canyon.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including within the boundaries of the maps
contained within this proposed rule developed areas, tilled fields, row
crops, golf course turfgrass, buildings, paved areas, and other areas
that lack PCEs for Piperia yadonii. The scale of the maps prepared
under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal
Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of all such developed areas.
Any such structures and the land under them inadvertently left inside
critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule
have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed
for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions limited
to these structures and underlying lands would not trigger section 7
consultation, unless they affect the species and/or primary constituent
elements in adjacent critical habitat.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas that we
have determined were occupied at the time of listing, and that contain
sufficient primary constituent elements (PCEs) to support life history
functions essential for the conservation of the species. Lands are
proposed for designation based on sufficient PCEs being present to
support the life processes of the species. Some lands contain all PCEs
and support multiple life processes. Some lands contain only a portion
of the PCEs necessary to support the particular use of that habitat.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
determined to be occupied at the time of listing and to contain the
primary constituent elements may require special management
considerations or protections. Many of the known occurrences of Piperia
yadonii are threatened by one or a combination of the following:
Habitat fragmentation or loss due to residential, commercial, or
recreational development; competition with nonnative plants for light,
space, or water; deer and rabbit herbivory; vegetation cutting for fire
prevention; changes in light, space, and soil moisture availability due
to loss or alteration of adjacent vegetation or forest canopy; changes
in fecundity (number and viability of offspring) or genetic variability
resulting from loss and fragmentation of populations or potentially low
pollinator abundance or activity; disease; and trampling. In maritime
chaparral associations of the Prunedale-Elkhorn region where fire has
not occurred in many decades, shrub diversity appears to be declining
as coast live oak or large canopied manzanitas become dominant (Van
Dyke et al. 2001, pp. 225-227). This conversion may be slow in the
shallow ridgetop soils where P. yadonii occurs, but increasing
development surrounding these ridgetops reduces the opportunity to use
fire as a management tool should it be deemed necessary to maintain the
open, low canopy conditions of P. yadonii's preferred habitat. These
threats may require special management and are addressed under the
critical habitat unit descriptions below.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 8 units as critical habitat for Piperia yadonii.
The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best
assessment at this time of areas determined to be occupied at the time
of listing, that contain the primary constituent elements, and that may
require special management. Table 1, below, identifies the approximate
area exempt from proposed critical habitat for P. yadonii pursuant to
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Exemptions are discussed later in this
proposed rule under the section Application of Section 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
[[Page 61556]]
Table 1.--Approximate Area Exempt From Proposed Critical Habitat for
Piperia yadonii Pursuant to Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Definitional area exemption area
Location (unit) (acres/ hectares) (acres/
hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presidio of Monterey, Monterey 121 ac (49 ha).... 121 ac (49 ha)
Peninsula.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approximate area encompassed within each proposed critical
habitat unit is shown in Table 2.
Table 2.--Critical Habitat Units Proposed for Piperia yadonii
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries in ac (ha)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private
Critical habitat unit and --------------------------------
subunit State Local agency Conservation- Total
oriented NGO Other private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Blohm Ranch............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 128 (52)
subunit 1a.................. 0 0 72 (29) 0 72 (29)
subunit 1b.................. 0 0 56 (23) 0 56 (23)
Unit 2: Manzanita Park.......... .............. .............. .............. .............. 498 (201)
subunit 2a...................... 0 0 231 (93) 0 231 (93)
subunit 2b...................... 0 0 0 83 (34) 83 (34)
subunit 2c...................... 0 183 (74) 0 0 183 (74)
Unit 3: Vierra Canyon........... .............. .............. .............. .............. 50 (20)
subunit 3a...................... 0 0 0 17 (7) 17 (7)
subunit 3b...................... 12 (5) 0 0 0 12 (5)
subunit 3c...................... 21 (8) 0 0 0 21 (8)
Unit 4: Aguajito................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 157 (64)
subunit 4a...................... 0 0 0 77 (31) 77 (31)
subunit 4b...................... 0 0 0 80 (32) 80 (32)
Unit 5: Old Capitol............. 0 0 0 16 (6) 16 (6)
Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula...... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1059 (428)
subunit 6a...................... 0 0 17 (7) 888 (359) 905 (366)
subunit 6b...................... 0 0 0 9 (4) 9 (4)
subunit 6c...................... 0 0 23 (9) 47 (19) 70 (28)
subunit 6d...................... 0 0 12 (5) 0 12 (5)
subunit 6e...................... 0 19 (7) 29 (12) 15 (6) 63 (25)
Unit 7: Point Lobos............. 228 (93) 0 97 (39) 0 325 (131)
Unit 8: Palo Colorado........... 0 0 0 73 (29) 73 (29)
Total................... 261 (105) 202 (81) 537 (217) 1305 (527) 2306 (931)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii, below.
Unit 1: Blohm Ranch
Unit 1 consists of 128 ac (52 ha) of private lands in northern
Monterey County in the Elkhorn Slough watershed. It is divided into two
ridgeline subunits, separated by intervening agricultural fields. The
two subunits support similar plant communities and need similar types
of special management; therefore, we discuss them as a unit, except to
differentiate land ownership. Unit 1 was known to be occupied at the
time of listing (Service 1998) and is currently occupied. It supports
one of the two largest occurrences of Piperia yadonii plants in the
Prunedale-Elkhorn area (several thousand plants (Allen 1996
unpaginated)) and the northernmost occurrences in the known range of
the species. This unit contains features that are essential for the
conservation of P. yadonii, including soils from weathered marine
sediments that are classified as an Arnold-Santa Ynez complex on the
ridgetops and as Arnold series soils on the slopes (PCE 1). Vegetation
is primarily high quality maritime chaparral, with ridgetops dominated
by low-growing Hooker's manzanita. This unit provides habitat that
supports germination, growth, and reproduction of P. yadonii. It
contains ridgetop habitat openings, between and among patches of P.
yadonii, to allow for population expansion and for shifts in population
location, should successional vegetation or other changes occur that
alter microhabitat conditions. Threats that may require special
management in this unit are: the growth and spread of invasive plant
species (such as jubata grass); erosion from old roadbeds or past
earth-moving activities; removal of the P. yadonii occurrence or its
associated natural community to accommodate road construction,
agricultural, or other facilities (reservoirs, housing sites); and
herbivory. Herbivory of flowering stalks was 36 percent in 1999,
although predators (mountain lion (Puma concolor)) of herbivores were
recently sighted on these lands. Jubata grass is present on surrounding
properties and continued colonization of these lands by this species is
likely. Given that pollen deposition rates and seed production were low
for the one site studied in this unit, special management may also be
needed to ensure that the abundance of
[[Page 61557]]
potential pollinators, such as moths or bees, are maintained or
enhanced.
Subunit 1a: This subunit consists of 72 ac (29 ha) of private land
owned by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation and The Nature Conservancy.
Although restoration and removal of nonnative invasive plant
populations are ongoing, a management plan specifically addressing
Piperia yadonii on properties owned by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation
and The Nature Conservancy has not yet been developed (Hayes 2006).
Subunit 1b: This subunit consists of 56 ac (23 ha) of land owned by
The Nature Conservancy and managed by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation, or
owned and managed by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation. A management plan
specifically addressing Piperia yadonii has not yet been developed.
Unit 2: Manzanita Park
Unit 2 consists of 498 ac (201 ha) of Monterey County lands north
of Prunedale. It is divided into 3 subunits that support similar soils
and vegetation communities and need similar types of special
management; therefore, we discuss these characteristics for the whole
unit. Unit 2 was known to be occupied at the time of listing (Service
1998) and is currently occupied. The lands in this unit support several
thousand Piperia yadonii plants scattered along the ridges, separated
by intervening lower elevation areas of oak woodland, farmed lands, and
residential development (Allen 1996 unpaginated; Environmental Science
Associates 2003; CNDDB 2005; Graff 2006 appendix IV). This unit
contains features that are essential for the conservation of P.
yadonii, including soils from weathered marine sediments that are
classified as an Arnold-Santa Ynez complex on the ridgetops and as
Arnold series soils on the slopes and on more undulating topography
within Manzanita County Park (PCE 1). Vegetation within the subunits is
primarily maritime chaparral, with some coast live oak woodland at the
lower elevations. The ridgetops are dominated by low-growing Hooker's
manzanita. This unit contains the PCEs for P. yadonii that promote
germination, growth, and reproduction. This unit encompasses a cluster
of three ridgelines primarily oriented east-west that rise in elevation
from west to east, and which support P. yadonii and which may be close
enough for genetic exchange via wind-dispersed seed. In conjunction
with the Blohm Ranch unit, this unit will encompass the majority of the
P. yadonii plants known in the northern half of the range of P.
yadonii. The ridgetop habitat openings, between and among patches of P.
yadonii, allow for population expansion and for shifts in population
location, should successional vegetation or other changes occur that
alter microhabitat conditions. This unit is the central of the three in
the Elkhorn-Prunedale geographic area. This unit supports one of the
two largest occurrences in the species northern range and they include
the largest occupied ridgelines relatively unfragmented by residential
development in the heart of the species northern distribution. Due to
their relatively unfragmented condition, lands in this unit may support
dormant plants among the patches of recorded P. yadonii. Threats that
may require special management in this unit are: the growth and spread
of invasive plant species, such as jubata grass, French broom, and
eucalyptus; elimination or further fragmentation of habitat from
residential, recreational, or agricultural development; vegetation
removal for fuel reduction purposes; disease; and herbivory. Special
management may also be needed to ensure the abundance of potential
pollinators, such as moths or bees, are maintained or enhanced, to
ensure the production of sufficient viable seed.
Subunit 2a: This subunit consists of 231 ac (93 ha) of land owned
and managed by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation.
Subunit 2b: This subunit consists of 83 ac (34 ha) of private
lands. Some of the lands in this subunit were proposed for a 10 lot
subdivision, residential development, and open space designation in
2000 (Mercurio 2000, p. 2); this project may be moving forward in the
near future (Schubert 2006).
Subunit 2c: This subunit consists of 183 ac (74 ha) within
Manzanita County Park, owned and managed by the County of Monterey.
Part of the park has been developed into a sports complex and is not
part of the proposed designation. A portion of the park within the
proposed unit is used for hiking and equestrian use. Although
volunteers have recently begun removing nonnative invasive plants from
the park, we are not aware of the existence of any management plan that
specifically addresses Piperia yadonii on properties owned by Monterey
County.
Unit 3: Vierra Canyon
Unit 3 consists of 50 ac (20 ha) consisting primarily of State
lands in northern Monterey County north of Prunedale. It is divided
into 3 subunits with similarities in vegetation and special management
needs. Unit 3 was known to be occupied at the time of listing (Service
1998) and is currently occupied (Childs 2004). The easternmost Piperia
yadonii occurrences in unit 3 (subunit 3b and 3c) are reported to be
small, with fewer than 10 flowering individuals; this likely represents
up to several hundred individuals, based on the observed proportion of
flowering to vegetative individuals (Doak and Graff 2001). This unit
contains features that are essential for the conservation of P.
yadonii, including the following: lands in this unit support soils from
weathered marine sediments that are classified as an Arnold-Santa Ynez
complex on the ridgetops and the Arnold series on the slopes (PCE 1).
Vegetation is primarily maritime chaparral, with coast live oak
woodland in the lower elevation areas. The ridgetops are dominated by
low-growing Hooker's manzanita. The lands surrounding these subunits
are more extensively developed for residential use, than are those to
the west, severing the once continuous maritime chaparral that
dominated the ridges. Consequently the subunits are smaller and lack
the additional habitat for population expansion found in the other
northern units. This unit contains the PCEs for P. yadonii that promote
germination, growth, and reproduction. It supports the easternmost
occurrences of P. yadonii in the Elkhorn-Prunedale region, on the
northeast periphery of the species' range. Lands in these units have
the features that are essential to the conservation of the species.
Threats that may require special management in this unit are
elimination or further fragmentation of habitat from development;
grading or other vegetation removal (e.g., for fuel reduction purposes
or roads); and the spread of invasive plant species.
Subunit 3a: This subunit consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of private lands
that are overlain by a Pacific Gas and Electric Company easement. The
occurrence in this subunit is the largest documented in the unit,
numbering several thousand plants (Childs 2004).
Subunit 3b: This subunit consists of 12 ac (5 ha) of State lands
(California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)). The lands in this
subunit and in subunit 3c were part of a previous study area for a
highway alignment. This alignment was eventually excluded from further
consideration and the State retains the lands (Robison 2006). We are
not aware of any management plan that addresses Piperia yadonii on
these State properties.
Subunit 3c: This subunit consists of 21 ac (8 ha) of State lands.
[[Page 61558]]
Unit 4: Aguajito
Unit 4 consists of 157 ac (64 ha) of private land east of the
Monterey Peninsula and north of Jack's Peak County Park. It is divided
into 2 subunits separated by lower elevation lands. Unit 4 was known to
be occupied at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is currently
occupied. Piperia yadonii occurs in these subunits on ridgetops, where
it grows with Hooker's manzanita (EcoSystems West 2006, p. 61). This
unit contains features that are essential for the conservation of P.
yadonii, including the following: soils in this unit are classified as
the Santa Lucia--Reliz Association, where Reliz series soils occur on
the ridgetops and Santa Lucia series soils on surrounding slopes (PCE
1). Reliz series soils are characterized as excessively drained shaley
clay loams underlain by shale or sandstone (USDA 1978, p. 64). The
vegetation in the unit is a mix of Monterey pine forest and maritime
chaparral. Griffin (1978, p. 69) commented that this area was one of
the only ones in the Monterey Bay area where maritime chaparral grows
on shale. He also noted that sandstones exist within the shale beds and
produce sandy loam soils. A related species, Piperia elegans is more
abundant in the surrounding Monterey pine forest (EcoSystems West
2005b, p. 7). This unit provides habitat that support germination,
growth, and reproduction. Unit 4 represents one of only two units
proposed in the region interior to the Monterey Peninsula. It supports
the largest undeveloped easternmost occurrence of P. yadonii in the
central and southern half of the species range. Its preservation would
help avoid range collapse. Threats that may require special management
in this unit are fragmentation of habitat from development and the
colonization and spread of invasive plant species.
Subunit 4a: This subunit consists of 77 ac (31 ha) of private lands
(owned by the Pebble Beach Company). Lands in and/or adjacent to this
subunit and subunit 4b are proposed for preservation in the Pebble
Beach Company's recent development plan, but the configuration of the
preservation areas is not yet determined (Monterey County 2005, pp. 2-
89, 2-90).
Subunit 4b: This subunit consists of 80 ac (32 ha) of private lands
(owned by the Pebble Beach Company) and proposed for preservation (see
above), and 3 ac (1ha) of Monterey County road right-of-way.
Unit 5: Old Capitol
Unit 5 consists of 16 ac (7 ha) of private land (owned by the
Pebble Beach Company) east of the Monterey Peninsula. Unit 5 was known
to be occupied at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is currently
occupied. Surveys in 2005 revealed that the dominant Piperia species at
this location is P. elegans, which number in the thousands; however,
several hundred P. yadonii co-occur with P. elegans throughout the unit
(EcoSystems West 2005b, pp. 5-7). This unit contains features that are
essential for the conservation of P. yadonii, including the Chamise
shaley clay loam (PCE 1) soil type. The vegetation is Monterey pine
forest and coast live oak woodland. This unit provides habitat that
supports germination, growth, and reproduction of P. yadonii. It is the
only unit proposed between the Monterey Peninsula (Unit 6) and Aguajito
(Unit 4) to the east, and therefore provides connectivity between these
other two units. Threats that may require special management in this
unit are fragmentation or loss of habitat from development, habitat
degradation by motorized vehicles and encampments, debris dumping, and
competition from nonnative invasive plants. The land in Unit 5 is
proposed for preservation in the Pebble Beach Company's recent
development plan (Monterey County 2005, pp. 2-89, 2-90).
Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula
Unit 6 consists of 1,058 ac (428 ha) of private and City lands on
the Monterey Peninsula. This unit is divided into 5 subunits due to
intervening development. Most of the lands surrounding this unit are
developed for residential and recreational (golf) use. The similarities
among the subunits in soils and vegetation community are discussed
here; subunit specific details are discussed below. Unit 6 was known to
be occupied at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is currently
occupied. It supports the greatest abundance and largest aerial extent
of Piperia yadonii in the species' range, with close to 100,000
vegetative plants (Zander Associates and WWD Corporation 2004 all pp.;
EcoSystems West 2004, pp. 1-9; EcoSystems West 2005a, 2005b all pp.).
This unit contains features that are essential for the conservation of
P. yadonii including sands or sandy loam soils that belong to at least
5 soil series on the Monterey Peninsula unit (Baywood sands, Narlon
loamy fine sands, Sheridan coarse sandy loams, Tangair fine sands, and
Santa Lucia shaley clay loam). Vegetation in this unit is primarily
Monterey pine forest, with maritime chaparral, and Bishop pine/Gowen
cypress forest in two subunits (PCE 1). Pollinator observations and
collections were made on lands in this unit (PCE 2) (Doak and Graff
2001). This unit provides habitat that supports germination, growth,
reproduction, and space for shifts in the location of P. yadonii, as
microhabitat conditions change. Threats that may require special
management in this unit are: Adverse effects from adjacent existing and
future development, including the loss of adjacent forest canopy,
increased trampling, potential hydrologic changes, overspray of
pesticides, the introduction of pathogens or disease, mowing, and the
introduction and spread of invasive plant species; continuing high and/
or increasing deer populations resulting in high herbivory levels; and
increased growth of understory vegetation due to exclusion of wildfire.
Subunit 6a: This subunit consists of 904 ac (366 ha) of private
lands owned by the Pebble Beach Company and other private owners,
including 80 ac (33 ha) owned by the Del Monte Forest Foundation
(DMFF). Protected lands in this subunit include the SFB Morse Botanical
Reserve (owned by the DMFF) and the Huckleberry Hill Natural Reserve
(easement held by the DMFF). It also includes lands identified in the
Pebble Beach Company's most recent development proposal for
preservation or conservation: Areas PQR, G, H, I, the Corporate Yard
Preservation Area, and Area D (Monterey County 2005). The Department of
the Army's Presidio of Monterey is contiguous with the northeastern
edge of this subunit; those lands are exempted from this proposed
designation, as described later in this rule. Plant communities in the
Huckleberry Hill Natural Area and SFB Morse Botanical Preserve are
Gowen cypress/Bishop pine forest, maritime chaparral, and Monterey pine
forest. The remaining lands support primarily Monterey pine forest.
Lands in this subunit support about 90,000 vegetative Piperia yadonii
plants (Zander Associates and WWD Corporation 2004 all pp.; EcoSystems
West 2004, pp. 1-9; EcoSystems West 2005a, 2005b all pp.). Although the
DMFF conducts some monitoring and removal of nonnative invasive plant
populations, a management plan specifically addressing P. yadonii on
properties owned by the DMFF has not been developed.
Subunit 6b: This subunit consists of 9 ac (4 ha) of private lands.
It is identified in the Pebble Beach Company's most recent development
proposal as the
[[Page 61559]]
Bristol Curve Conservation Area (Monterey County 2005 Fig. ES-2).
Vegetation in this subunit is Monterey pine forest with an herbaceous
understory.
Subunit 6c: This subunit consists of 70 ac (28 ha) of private
lands, of which about 23 acres (9 ha) are owned by the Del Monte Forest
Foundation (DMFF). Lands within this unit are referred to as Indian
Village (owned by the DMFF) and, in the Pebble Beach Company's recent
development proposal, as Conservation Area K and Preservation Areas J
and L (Monterey County 2005 Fig. ES-2). Adjacent lands that are
proposed for development are not included in this subunit. The
vegetation in this subunit is primarily Monterey pine forest. This
subunit supports several thousand Piperia yadonii plants. Along with
subunit 6b and 6d, it encompasses lands in the westernmost region of
the Monterey Peninsula.
Subunit 6d: This subunit consists of 13 ac (5 ha) of private lands
owned by the Del Monte Forest Foundation. It encompasses the Crocker
Grove, an area of Monterey cypress forest with some adjacent Monterey
pine forest (PCE 1). This is the westernmost subunit on the peninsula,
closest to the ocean, and lands it occurs on are mapped as marine
terrace 2 (Jones and Stokes 1994b, p. 11). It has been documented to
support about 50 flowering Piperia yadonii plants, which typically
equates to several hundred vegetative plants.
Subunit 6e: This subunit consists of 44 ac (18 ha) of private lands
and 19 ac (7 (ha) owned by the City of Pacific Grove. About 29 ac (12
ha) of the private lands are owned by the Del Monte Forest Foundation.
Lands within this unit are referred to as the Navajo tract and as
Preservation Area B in the Pebble Beach Company's most recent
development proposal (Monterey County 2005 Fig. ES-2). The vegetation
in this subunit is a mix of coast live oak and Monterey pine forest
(PCE 1). It is the northernmost unit we are proposing on the Peninsula.
It supports several hundred plants of Piperia yadonii.
Unit 7: Point Lobos Ranch
Unit 7 consists of 228 ac (92 ha) of State land south of the
Monterey Peninsula on the Big Sur coast, and 97 ac (39 ha) owned by the
Big Sur Land Trust that are intended to be added to the State Parks
system in the future. Unit 7 was known to be occupied at the time of
listing (Service 1998) and is currently occupied. The lands in this
unit support several thousand Piperia yadonii plants (Graff et al.
2003, Nedeff et al. 2003). This unit contains features that are
essential for the conservation of P. yadonii, including the sandy loam
soils in the Sheridan, Narlon, 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.
Threats that may require special management in this unit are: The
growth and spread of invasive plant species, such as French broom; loss
of habitat from residential development; and erosion. Access by park
visitors may need to be managed to avoid trailing in Monterey pine
forest populations and use of herbicides should be controlled to avoid
or minimize effects to P. yadonii.
Unit 8: Palo Colorado
Unit 8 consists of 73 ac (29 ha) of private land on the Big Sur
coast. Unit 8 was known to be occupied at the time of listing (Service
1998) and is currently occupied. The lands in this unit were reported
to support 38 flowering Piperia yadonii plants (Norman 1995) which
likely represents a population of several hundred to several thousand
vegetative individuals, based on the observed proportions of flowering
to vegetative individuals (Doak and Graff 2001). This unit contains
features that are essential for the conservation of P. yadonii
including the following: A mix of sandy loam soils, shallow soils less
than 20 inches deep, and rock outcrops classified as the Junipero-Sur
complex and Rock Outcrop-Xerorthents Association (PCE 1) (USDA 1978, p.
38). Vegetation in this unit has been described as a unique association
of maritime chaparral, with low-growing hybrid Arctostaphylos
glandulosa as the dominant manzanita under which P. yadonii occurs
(Norman 1995). This unit provides habitat that supports germination,
growth, and reproduction of P. yadonii. This unit supports the most
southern and highest elevation (1000 to 1400 feet (300 to 430 m))
occurrence in the species' range. Threats that may require special
management in this unit are habitat fragmentation and habitat
degradation from road and trail grading and from future development,
such as the introduction and spread of nonnative plants, removal of
native vegetation, erosion, and hydrologic changes.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.'' However, recent decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals have invalidated this definition (see Gifford Pinchot
Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir
2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245
F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)). Pursuant to current national policy and
the statutory provisions of the Act, destruction or adverse
modification is determined on the basis of whether, with implementation
of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would
remain functional (or retain the current ability for the primary
constituent elements to be functionally established) to serve the
intended conservation role for the species.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification
of proposed critical habitat. This is a procedural requirement only.
However, once a proposed species becomes listed, or proposed critical
habitat is designated
[[Page 61560]]
as final, the full prohibitions of section 7(a)(2) apply to any Federal
action. The primary utility of the conference procedures is to maximize
the opportunity for a Federal agency to adequately consider proposed
species and critical habitat and avoid potential delays in implementing
a proposed action as a result of the section 7(a)(2) compliance
process, should those species be listed or the critical habitat
designated.
Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may
conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are
typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse
effects to the proposed species or proposed critical habitat. Formal
conferences are typically used when the Federal agency or the Service
believes the proposed action is likely to cause adverse effects to
proposed species or critical habitat, inclusive of those that may cause
jeopardy or adverse modification.
The results of an informal conference are typically transmitted in
a conference report; while the results of a formal conference are
typically transmitted in a conference opinion. Conference opinions on
proposed critical habitat are typically prepared according to 50 CFR
402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat were designated. We may
adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion when the
critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR
402.10(d)). As noted above, any conservation recommendations in a
conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation,
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be documented
through the Service's issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, but are likely to adversely affect, listed
species or its critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable
and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable.
``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as
alternative actions identified during consultation that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid
jeopardy to the listed species or destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal
agencies may request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions
for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect Piperia yadonii or its
designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation under
the Act. Activities on State, tribal, local or private lands requiring
a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service) or involving
some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local or private lands
that are not federally-funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require
section 7 consultations.
Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards for
Actions Involving Effects to Piperia Yadonii and Its Critical Habitat
Jeopardy Standard
The Service has applied an analytical framework for Piperia yadonii
jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on the importance of core area
populations to the survival and recovery of P. yadonii. The section
7(a)(2) analysis is focused not only on these populations but also on
the habitat conditions necessary to support them.
The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery
needs of Piperia yadonii in a qualitative fashion without making
distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is
necessary for recovery. Generally, if a proposed Federal action is
incompatible with the viability of the affected core area
population(s), inclusive of associated habitat conditions, a jeopardy
finding is considered to be warranted, because of the relationship of
each core area population to the survival and recovery of the species
as a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
For the reasons described in the Director's December 9, 2004
memorandum, the key factor related to the adverse modification
determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal
action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or
retain the current ability for the primary constituent elements to be
functionally established) to serve the intended conservation role for
the species. Generally, the conservation role of P. yadonii critical
habitat units is to support viable core area populations.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the conservation value
of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii is appreciably reduced.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore result in
[[Page 61561]]
consultation for P. yadonii include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would remove or destroy Piperia yadonii plants or
remove flowering stalks. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, grading, plowing, mowing, burning during the growing or
flowering season, driving over plants, unrestricted creation of trails
through occurrences, unrestricted mechanical weed control, and/or
unlimited use of herbicides.
(2) Actions that would increase the establishment and spread of
invasive nonnative species in Piperia yadonii habitat or increase the
invasability of the plant community within which P. yadonii occurs.
Such activities could include, but are not limited to: grading;
plowing; road building and maintenance; introducing seeds or other
propagules of invasive species during erosion-control practices and/or
landscaping practices; isolating habitat patches within a matrix of
residential or other development; off road vehicle traffic; and/or
livestock grazing. These activities could encourage the establishment
and spread species such as French broom or jubata grass, which can
compete with P. yadonii for light and other resources.
(3) Actions that would directly remove or destroy the low-growing
maritime chaparral and Monterey pine forest plant communities on which
Piperia yadonii depends. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to: road construction; grading; development; plowing; burning
out-of-season or too frequently; and/or off-road vehicle traffic. These
activities could reduce or eliminate space and the appropriate light
and hydrologic conditions for P. yadonii germination, growth, and
reproduction.
(4) Actions that would indirectly reduce the presence of low-
growing manzanitas in maritime chaparral, openings in maritime
chaparral, or forested areas with a diverse assemblage (but low cover)
of native herbs. Such activities could include, but are not limited to:
those that isolate or fragment habitat through development; road
construction that promotes such development; exclusion of fire; reduced
opportunity for prescribed burns during the fall season; and/or
increased potential for human-caused fire during the growing season of
Piperia yadonii. These activities could result in less diverse,
consistently old-age maritime chaparral stands with fewer openings or
areas that support low-growing manzanitas and reduced abundance of
forest patches with filtered light canopies and low cover by vines and
shrubs.
(5) Actions that would alter the soil hydrology in Piperia yadonii
habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to: grading
or excavation that disrupts subsurface hardpan layers that influence
soil saturation; conversion to agricultural lands; development of golf
courses, ball fields, or other areas that require irrigation; and/or
development which increases impermeable surfaces. These activities
could result in soils that do not retain sufficient moisture through
the growing season, excessive irrigation that influences P. yadonii
through altered water availability or indirectly through changes in
associated vegetation, and changes in drainage patterns which influence
soil saturation during the growing season.
(6) Actions that would increase the abundance of herbivores of
Piperia yadonii leaves and flowers (such as deer and rabbits) or
encourage the spread and abundance of nonnative species that consume
pollen (e.g., nonnative earwigs). Such activities could include, but
are not limited to: residential or commercial development that
introduces landscaping that favors nonnative garden invertebrates but
not their predators (e.g., lizards); and/or fencing that excludes
predators, but not herbivores. These actions could result in increased
levels of herbivory of P. yadonii leaves and flowers and
correspondingly reduced levels of reproduction.
(7) Actions that would diminish the variety or abundance of
pollinators needed for seed set in Piperia yadonii. Such actions could
include, but are not limited to: removal of the native maritime
chaparral and forest plant communities within which P. yadonii grows,
night-lighting adjacent to areas supporting P. yadonii, and/or
unlimited pesticide applications. These actions could indirectly reduce
reproduction in P. yadonii through reduced pollen transfer and could
alter gene flow between occurrences through changes in pollinator
composition.
All of the units proposed as critical habitat, as well as that
portion of one which has been exempted under 4(a)(3) of the Act contain
features essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. All units
are within the geographic range of the species and all units were
occupied by the species at the time of listing. In some cases, the
level of detail regarding the precise location of plants within the
units was not documented until after the listing. All units are
occupied by P. yadonii. Because all proposed critical habitat units are
occupied, Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in
areas currently occupied by P. yadonii, or if the species may be
affected by their actions, to ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of P. yadonii.
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act
Section 4(a)(3)
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete, by November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan (INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural
resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes an assessment of the
ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for
the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and
priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring and
adaptive management plan. Among other things, each INRMP must, to the
extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification,
wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to
support fish and wildlife and enforcement of applicable natural
resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. INRMPs developed by
military installations located within the range of the proposed
critical habitat designation for Piperia yadonii were analyzed for
exemption under the authority of 4(a)(3) of the Act.
The Presidio of Monterey (POM) has an INRMP and Endangered Species
[[Page 61562]]
Management Plan (ESMP) in place that provides a benefit for Piperia
yadonii. The ESMP and INRMP were completed, and the Army began
implementing each of them, in 1999 and 2001, respectively (Harding ESE
1999; Harding ESE 2001; Cairns 2006). The conservation goal of the ESMP
that addresses P. yadonii is to maintain the two occurrences on POM
lands and protect them from impacts during use of the nearby obstacle/
orienteering course. The plan identifies the following actions that
will benefit P. yadonii: Monitoring; protecting the populations from
foot traffic by installing signs and by other means; removing nonnative
plant species from documented and potential habitat; monitoring deer
browsing and providing caging, if necessary; and establishing a
propagation program, if necessary. The POM has carried out the
following in the past 5 years: Annual population monitoring since 2000,
installation and maintenance of educational signs, creation of an
educational brochure highlighting P. yadonii, construction and
installation of outdoor bulletin boards on which the brochures are
posted, and removal of infestations of nonnative French broom in over
13 acres of Monterey pine forest habitat (Cairns 2006).
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts
identified in the ESMP and INRMP will provide benefits to Piperia
yadonii occurring in habitats within the POM. Therefore, we are not
including approximately 121 acres (49 ha) of habitat for P. yadonii
within the POM in this proposed critical habitat designation pursuant
to section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Section 4(b)(2)
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national
security impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area
from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the Secretary is afforded broad discretion and the
Congressional record is clear that in making a determination under the
section the Secretary has discretion as to which factors and how much
weight will be given to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2), in considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits of
including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If an
exclusion is contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the
area would result in the extinction of the species. The Service is
conducting an economic analysis of the impacts of the proposed critical
habitat designation and related factors, which will be available for
public review and comment. Based on public comment on that document,
the proposed designation itself, and the information in the final
economic analysis, areas may be excluded from critical habitat by the
Secretary under the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This is
provided for in the Act, and in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.
Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands
Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover
without the cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60% of the
United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute 1995)
and at least 80% of endangered or threatened species occur either
partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002). Stein et al.
(1995) found that only about 12% of listed species were found almost
exclusively on Federal lands (90-100% of their known occurrences
restricted to Federal lands) and that 50% of federally listed species
are not known to occur on Federal lands at all.
Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-federal landowners
(Wilcove and Chen 1998, Crouse et al. 2002, James 2002). Building
partnerships and promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners is
essential to understanding the status of species on non-federal lands
and is necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing
listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction in contributing to
endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-sector
efforts through the Four Cs philosophy--conservation through
communication, consultation, and cooperation. This philosophy is
evident in Service programs such as HCPs, Safe Harbors, CCAs, CCAAs,
and conservation challenge cost-share. Many private landowners,
however, are wary of the possible consequences of encouraging
endangered species on their property, and there is mounting evidence
that some regulatory actions by the Federal Government, while well-
intentioned and required by law, can under certain circumstances have
unintended negative consequences for the conservation of species on
private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, Bean 2002, Conner and Mathews 2002,
James 2002, Koch 2002, Brook et al. 2003). Many landowners fear a
decline in their property value due to real or perceived restrictions
on land-use options where threatened or endangered species are found.
Consequently, harboring endangered species is viewed by many landowners
as a liability, resulting in anti-conservation incentives because
maintaining habitats that harbor endangered species represents a risk
to future economic opportunities (Main et al. 1999, Brook et al. 2003).
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7 of the Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands.
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on
private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will
support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, Bean
2002, Brook et al. 2003). The magnitude of this negative outcome is
greatly amplified in situations where active management measures (e.g.,
reintroduction, fire management, control of invasive species) are
necessary for species conservation (Bean 2002).
The Department of the Interior's ``4Cs'' philosophy--conservation
through communication, consultation, and cooperation--is the foundation
for developing the tools of conservation. These tools include
conservation grants, funding for Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program, the Coastal Program, and cooperative-conservation challenge
cost-share grants. Our Private Stewardship Grant program and Landowner
Incentive Program provide assistance to private landowners in their
[[Page 61563]]
voluntary efforts to protect threatened, imperiled, and endangered
species, including the development and implementation of HCPs.
Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (e.g., Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs), contractual conservation agreements,
easements, and stakeholder-negotiated State regulations) enhance
species conservation by extending species protections beyond those
available through section 7 consultations. In the past decade we have
encouraged 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 coercive methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
There are currently no conservation plans for lands supporting
Piperia yadonii that we have determined contain the features essential
for its conservation.
The Pebble Beach Company has submitted a draft conservation
strategy for some of its lands that are within P. yadonii proposed
critical habitat units on the Monterey Peninsula (Unit 6), and interior
to the Monterey Peninsula (Unit 4 and Unit 5). We are continuing to
work with the Pebble Beach Company to refine that strategy. We also
invite discussion with other landowners within proposed Critical
Habitat that have an interest in developing conservation strategies
that we would evaluate to determine if they provide a greater benefit
to Yadon's piperia than could be achieved through the final designation
of critical habitat See more on the section 4(b)(2) balancing process,
described below.
We anticipate no impact to national security, Tribal lands, or
habitat conservation plans from this proposed critical habitat
designation. The information provided in the section below provides the
framework for our consideration of Exclusions under 4(b)(2) of the Act.
General Principles of Section 7 Consultation Used in the 4(b)(2)
Balancing Process
The most direct, and potentially largest, regulatory benefit of
critical habitat is that federally authorized, funded, or carried out
activities require consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act to
ensure that they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. There are two limitations to this regulatory effect. First, it
only applies where there is a Federal nexus--if there is no Federal
nexus, designation itself does not restrict actions that destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Second, it only limits destruction
or adverse modification. By its nature, the prohibition on adverse
modification is designed to ensure those areas that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of
the species are not eroded. Critical habitat designation alone,
however, does not require specific steps toward recovery.
Once consultation under section 7 of the Act is triggered, the
process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing
that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect the
listed species or its critical habitat. However, if the Service
determines through informal consultation that adverse impacts are
likely to occur, then formal consultation would be initiated. Formal
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, with separate analyses being
made under both the jeopardy and the adverse modification standards.
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain
discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects
to primary constituent elements, but it would not contain any mandatory
reasonable and prudent measures or terms and conditions. Mandatory
measures and terms and conditions to implement such measures are only
specified when the proposed action would result in the incidental take
of a listed animal species. Reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
proposed Federal action would only be suggested when the biological
opinion results in a jeopardy or adverse modification conclusion.
We also note that for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's
decision in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot),
the Service conflated the jeopardy standard with the standard for
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat when evaluating
federal actions that affect currently occupied critical habitat. The
Court ruled that the two standards are distinct and that adverse
modification evaluations require consideration of impacts on the
recovery of species. Thus, under the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical
habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a
species. However, we believe the conservation achieved through
implementing habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or other habitat
management plans is typically greater than would be achieved through
multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, section 7 consultations
involving consideration of critical habitat. Management plans commit
resources to implement long-term management and protection to
particular habitat for at least one and possibly other listed or
sensitive species. Section 7 consultations only commit Federal agencies
to prevent adverse modification to critical habitat caused by the
particular project, and they are not committed to provide conservation
or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the proposed project.
Thus, any HCP or management plan which considers enhancement or
recovery as the management standard will often provide as much or more
benefit than a consultation for critical habitat designation conducted
under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit in the Gifford
Pinchot decision.
The information provided in this section applies to all the
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat in that it provides the framework for the
consultation process.
Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat
A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value
for Piperia yadonii. In general the educational benefit of a critical
habitat designation always exists, although in some cases it may be
redundant with other educational effects. For example, HCPs have
significant public input and may largely duplicate the educational
benefit of a critical habitat designation. This benefit is closely
related to a second, more indirect benefit: that designation of
critical habitat would inform State agencies and local governments
about areas that could be conserved under State laws or local
ordinances.
Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs or Other Approved Management
Plans From Critical Habitat
The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other approved
management plans from critical habitat designation include relieving
landowners, communities, and counties of any
[[Page 61564]]
additional regulatory burden that might be imposed by a critical
habitat designation. Most HCPs and other conservation plans take many
years to develop and, upon completion, are consistent with the recovery
objectives for listed species that are covered within the plan area. In
fact, designating critical habitat in areas covered by a pending HCP or
conservation plan could result in the loss of some species' benefits if
participants abandon the planning process, in part because of the
strength of the perceived additional regulatory compliance that such
designation would entail. Although plants are not subject to the
prohibition on take in Section 9 of the Act, the Service encourages
applicants to include them as covered species in HCPs by incorporating
measures to protect them and their habitat under the plans. If as a
result of the federal nexus created by such inclusion, plants are
subjected to increased numbers of consultations under Section 7 due to
designation of critical habitat, applicants will likely be discouraged
from incorporating conservation measures for plants in their HCPs. The
time and cost of regulatory compliance for a critical habitat
designation do not have to be quantified for them to be perceived as
additional Federal regulatory burden sufficient to discourage continued
participation in plans targeting listed species' conservation.
The benefits of excluding lands within approved management plans
from critical habitat designation include relieving landowners,
communities, and counties of any additional regulatory burden that
might be imposed by critical habitat. Many conservation plans provide
conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species. Imposing an
additional regulatory review as a result of the designation of critical
habitat may undermine conservation efforts and partnerships in many
areas. Designation of critical habitat within the boundaries of
management plans that provide conservation measures for a species could
be viewed as a disincentive to those entities currently developing
these plans or contemplating them in the future, because one of the
incentives for undertaking conservation is greater ease of permitting
where listed species are affected. Addition of a new regulatory
requirement would remove a significant incentive for undertaking the
time and expense of management planning.
A related benefit of excluding lands within management plans from
critical habitat designation is the unhindered continued ability to
seek new partnerships with future plan participants including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands within approved
management plan areas are designated as critical habitat, it would
likely have a negative effect on our ability to establish new
partnerships to develop these plans, particularly plans that address
landscape-level conservation of species and habitats. By preemptively
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional conservation actions in the future.
As noted above, there are currently no approved HCPs or management
plans in place that provide conservation benefits to P. yadonii.
However, The Pebble Beach Company has submitted a draft conservation
strategy for some of its lands that are within P. yadonii proposed
critical habitat units on the Monterey Peninsula (Unit 6), and interior
to the Monterey Peninsula (Unit 4 and Unit 5), and we are continuing to
work with the Pebble Beach Company to refine that strategy. If the
strategy is finalized and assured of implementation prior to final
critical habitat designation, we will evaluate it to determine whether
it provides a greater benefit to Yadon's piperia than could be achieved
through the final designation of critical habitat.
Economic Analysis
An analysis of the economic impacts of proposing critical habitat
for Piperia yadonii is being prepared. We will announce the
availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it is completed,
at which time we will seek public review and comment. At that time,
copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for downloading
from the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/, or by contacting the
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see ADDRESSES section).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send these peer reviewers
copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the
Federal Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment,
during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and
conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing at
least 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period. We will
schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first
hearing.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain
technical jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format
of the proposed rule (grouping and order of the sections, use of
headings, paragraphing, and so forth) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is
the description of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) What
else could we do to make this proposed rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this proposed rule
easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of
the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You
may e-mail your comments to this address: [email protected].
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues,
but it is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to
the tight timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. We
are preparing a draft economic analysis of this proposed action, which
will be
[[Page 61565]]
available for public comment, to determine the economic consequences of
designating the specific area as critical habitat. This economic
analysis also will be used to determine compliance with Executive Order
12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act, and Executive Order 12630.
Within these areas, the types of Federal actions or authorized
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are listed
above in the section on Section 7 Consultation. The availability of the
draft economic analysis will be announced in the Federal Register and
in local newspapers, so that it is available for public review and
comments. The draft economic analysis can be obtained from the Internet
Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/ or by contacting the Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see ADDRESSES section).
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
At this time, the Service lacks the available economic information
necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA
finding. Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred until completion of the
draft economic analysis prepared pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act
and E.O. 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the required
factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the draft
economic analysis, the Service will publish a notice of availability of
the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation and reopen the
public comment period for the proposed designation for an additional 60
days. The Service will include with the notice of availability, as
appropriate, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis or a
certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities accompanied by the factual
basis for that determination. The Service has concluded that deferring
the RFA finding until completion of the draft economic analysis is
necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of the RFA. Deferring
the RFA finding in this manner will ensure that the Service makes a
sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic
information and provides the necessary opportunity for public comment.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions.
This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Piperia yadonii is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and it
is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and
no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above on to State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because only 7 percent (209 ac/84 ha) of the
total proposed critical habitat designation for Piperia yadonii is
owned by small government entities; these entities include the City of
Pacific Grove and Monterey County. Furthermore, a large portion of
these lands are designated as parks or open space and managed at least
in part for conservation of natural resources. As such, Small
Government Agency Plan is not required. We will, however, further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis and revise this
assessment if appropriate.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant
[[Page 61566]]
Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping
with DOI policy, we requested information from, and coordinated
development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in California. The designation of
critical habitat in areas currently occupied by Piperia yadonii imposes
no additional restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore,
has little incremental impact on State and local governments and their
activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments
in that the areas that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the primary
constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the conservation of
the species are specifically identified. While making this definition
and identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of Piperia yadonii.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F. 3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert.
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no tribal lands occupied at the time of listing or currently
that contain the features essential for the conservation of Piperia
yadonii and no tribal lands that are unoccupied that are essential for
the conservation of Piperia yadonii. Therefore, critical habitat for
Piperia yadonii has not been proposed for designation on Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author(s)
The primary author of this package is the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.12(h), revise the entry for ``Piperia yadonii''
under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Piperia yadonii.................. Yadon's piperia..... U.S.A. (CA)........ Orchidaceae E 1998 17.96(a) NA
(Orchid).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.96(a), add an entry for Piperia yadonii under family
Orchidaceae'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Orchidaceae:
Piperia yadonii (Yadon's piperia)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Monterey County,
California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Piperia yadonii are the habitat components that provide:
(i) A vegetation structure providing filtered sunlight on sandy
soils.
(A) Pine forest (primarily Monterey pine) with an open canopy and
sparse herbaceous understory on Baywood sands, Narlon loamy fine sands,
Sheridan coarse sandy loams, Tangair fine sands, Santa Lucia shaly clay
loams, and Chamise shaley clay loams underlain by a hardpan; and
[[Page 61567]]
(B) Maritime chaparral ridges with dwarfed shrubs (primarily
Hooker's manzanita) on Reliz shaly clay loams, Sheridan sandy loams,
Narlon sandy loams, Arnold loamy sands and soils in the Junipero-Sur
complex, Rock Outcrop-Xerorthents Association, and Arnold-Santa Ynez
complex often underlain by rock outcroppings.
(ii) Presence of nocturnal, short-tongued moths in the families
Pyralidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, and Pterophoridae.
(3) Critical habitat does not include man-made structures existing
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of
the primary constituent elements. Such structures include buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the land on which they are located.
(4) Critical Habitat Map Units--Data layers defining map units were
created on base maps using aerial imagery from the National
Agricultural Imagery Program; aerial imagery captured June 2005. Data
were project to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North
American Datum (NAD) 1983.
(5) Note: (Index map) of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii (Map
1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 61568]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18OC06.000
[[Page 61569]]
(6) Unit 1: Blohm Ranch, Monterey County, California
(i) Subunit 1a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 611901,
4079098; 611902, 4079137; 611917, 4079156; 611974, 4079198; 612002,
4079216; 612037, 4079247; 612049, 4079272; 612042, 4079293; 611982,
4079311; 611952, 4079324; 611943, 4079354; 611929, 4079419; 611930,
4079454; 611972, 4079486; 611987, 4079543; 612012, 4079583; 612011,
4079594; 612038, 4079619; 612190, 4079608; 612190, 4079539; 612216,
4079511; 612324, 4079491; 612343, 4079504; 612387, 4079471; 612456,
4079471; 612514, 4079509; 612558, 4079614; 612558, 4079724; 612489,
4079761; 612455, 4079807; 612459, 4079821; 612511, 4079847; 612550,
4079852; 612589, 4079847; 612625, 4079832; 612654, 4079812; 612673,
4079796; 612655, 4079782; 612630, 4079752; 612603, 4079744; 612647,
4079619; 612734, 4079691; 612754, 4079691; 612762, 4079710; 612785,
4079745; 612846, 4079723; 612827, 4079702; 612815, 4079690; 612804,
4079670; 612797, 4079645; 612795, 4079611; 612746, 4079599; 612716,
4079588; 612674, 4079586; 612655, 4079569; 612683, 4079496; 612666,
4079450; 612629, 4079411; 612638, 4079375; 612651, 4079353; 612661,
4079323; 612665, 4079286; 612624, 4079249; 612624, 4079222; 612635,
4079209; 612646, 4079194; 612662, 4079183; 612713, 4079155; 612682,
4079133; 612642, 4079112; 612585, 4079109; 612530, 4079112; 612521,
4079147; 612509, 4079197; 612576, 4079313; 612588, 4079337; 612589,
4079337; 612580, 4079358; 612579, 4079358; 612563, 4079371; 612537,
4079381; 612497, 4079398; 612474, 4079403; 612398, 4079417; 612367,
4079417; 612350, 4079399; 612346, 4079383; 612357, 4079360; 612369,
4079340; 612383, 4079316; 612395, 4079275; 612390, 4079255; 612380,
4079233; 612350, 4079218; 612286, 4079200; 612233, 4079178; 612196,
4079184; 612165, 4079184; 612143, 4079168; 612128, 4079150; 612128,
4079119; 612127, 4079094; 611959, 4078999; 611958, 4078999; 611931,
4079027; 611911, 4079061; returning to 611901, 4079098.
(ii) Subunit 1b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
611998, 4078651; 611999, 4078664; 611999, 4078665; 612044, 4078765;
612187, 4078803; 612213, 4078825; 612254, 4078844; 612284, 4078853;
612336, 4078871; 612385, 4078907; 612423, 4078925; 612458, 4078940;
612479, 4078947; 612520, 4078956; 612604, 4078959; 612662, 4078959;
612704, 4078960; 612812, 4078958; 612850, 4078951; 612897, 4078953;
612988, 4078967; 613045, 4078913; 613060, 4078936; 613099, 4078949;
613101, 4078961; 613094, 4078978; 613084, 4079005; 613073, 4079060;
613062, 4079129; 613051, 4079222; 613044, 4079306; 613056, 4079376;
613064, 4079397; 613082, 4079431; 613099, 4079501; 613130, 4079602;
613168, 4079601; 613177, 4079580; 613180, 4079551; 613198, 4079533;
613212, 4079488; 613220, 4079438; 613212, 4079355; 613203, 4079303;
613176, 4079297; 613165, 4079281; 613166, 4079253; 613195, 4079224;
613195, 4079212; 613176, 4079198; 613174, 4079174; 613177, 4079155;
613196, 4079139; 613205, 4079091; 613208, 4079041; 613195, 4078982;
613186, 4078964; 613182, 4078941; 613177, 4078906; 613172, 4078906;
613162, 4078914; 613153, 4078927; 613130, 4078938; 613103, 4078930;
613086, 4078918; 613073, 4078906; 613061, 4078885; 613061, 4078882;
612802, 4078842; 612765, 4078826; 612627, 4078767; 612606, 4078767;
612578, 4078759; 612552, 4078744; 612445, 4078722; 612278, 4078704;
612253, 4078701; 612170, 4078702; 612124, 4078719; 612110, 4078724;
612055, 4078722; 612071, 4078638; returning to 611998, 4078651.
(7) Note: Map of Units 1, 2, and 3 (Map 2) follows:
[[Page 61570]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18OC06.001
[[Page 61571]]
(8) Unit 2: Manzanita Park, Monterey County, California.
(i) Subunit 2a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 615541,
4076005; 615651, 4076047; 615859, 4076125; 616111, 4076311; 616209,
4076287; 616278, 4076318; 616316, 4076335; 616416, 4076435; 616503,
4076520; 616659, 4076565; 616566, 4076763; 616534, 4076874; 616515,
4076874; 616454, 4077003; 616562, 4077020; 616677, 4077028; 616820,
4077021; 616876, 4077008; 616925, 4076975; 617013, 4076959; 617053,
4076962; 617137, 4077017; 617176, 4077025; 617224, 4077020; 617259,
4077038; 617271, 4077094; 617286, 4077095; 617333, 4077097; 617481,
4077105; 617482, 4077105; 617488, 4076972; 617540, 4076890; 617565,
4076771; 617594, 4076701; 617703, 4076645; 617728, 4076486; 617830,
4076204; 617787, 4076190; 617729, 4076197; 617671, 4076233; 617643,
4076273; 617579, 4076433; 617565, 4076533; 617468, 4076615; 617445,
4076631; 617435, 4076657; 617402, 4076656; 617361, 4076620; 617305,
4076601; 617309, 4076551; 617377, 4076484; 617396, 4076450; 617407,
4076402; 617403, 4076354; 617377, 4076301; 617341, 4076268; 617287,
4076245; 617229, 4076245; 617167, 4076273; 617079, 4076356; 616934,
4076322; 616910, 4076259; 616884, 4076229; 616851, 4076207; 616814,
4076195; 616775, 4076192; 616737, 4076200; 616702, 4076217; 616655,
4076267; 616599, 4076383; 616511, 4076307; 616465, 4076283; 616430,
4076225; 616388, 4076189; 616213, 4076130; 616160, 4076127; 616111,
4076139; 616092, 4076133; 615967, 4076012; 615897, 4075959; 615835,
4075931; 615776, 4075922; 615706, 4075898; 615620, 4075896; 615575,
4075879; returning to 615541, 4076005.
(ii) Subunit 2b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
616488, 4074150; 616505, 4074167; 616533, 4074172; 616573, 4074209;
616573, 4074219; 616555, 4074267; 616557, 4074347; 616567, 4074401;
616736, 4074502; 616746, 4074512; 616760, 4074521; 616779, 4074536;
616804, 4074543; 616826, 4074543; 616853, 4074543; 616876, 4074540;
616890, 4074537; 616915, 4074552; 616943, 4074575; 617092, 4074595;
617327, 4074410; 617348, 4074387; 617367, 4074354; 617374, 4074335;
617379, 4074301; 617380, 4074258; 617379, 4074219; 617379, 4074218;
617346, 4074185; 617298, 4074145; 617219, 4074073; 617199, 4074072;
617186, 4074083; 617159, 4074076; 617134, 4074069; 617131, 4074058;
617114, 4074034; 616994, 4073984; 616944, 4073991; 616918, 4074001;
616981, 4074157; 617003, 4074188; 616891, 4074250; 616860, 4074246;
616845, 4074178; 616845, 4074160; 616853, 4074117; 616747, 4074137;
616712, 4074146; 616701, 4074171; 616673, 4074179; 616646, 4074104;
616652, 4074081; 616642, 4074056; 616620, 4074046; 616591, 4074041;
616568, 4074035; 616546, 4074023; 616532, 4074006; 616531, 4074006;
616490, 4074054; returning to 616488, 4074150.
(iii) Subunit 2c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
616931, 4073371; 616936, 4073410; 616951, 4073446; 616975, 4073477;
617003, 4073500; 617077, 4073542; 617094, 4073556; 617142, 4073581;
617382, 4073670; 617411, 4073676; 617450, 4073676; 617435, 4073712;
617512, 4073743; 617549, 4073763; 617598, 4073810; 617636, 4073830;
617694, 4073860; 617739, 4073865; 617774, 4073887; 617847, 4073880;
617879, 4073885; 617960, 4073894; 618016, 4073916; 618064, 4073947;
618117, 4073965; 618279, 4073927; 618244, 4074007; 618138, 4074038;
618106, 4074053; 618104, 4074059; 618103, 4074108; 618076, 4074150;
618071, 4074184; 618081, 4074204; 618095, 4074224; 618117, 4074247;
618176, 4074299; 618229, 4074318; 618261, 4074316; 618307, 4074300;
618370, 4074293; 618407, 4074278; 618448, 4074248; 618468, 4074227;
618507, 4074173; 618519, 4074146; 618533, 4074088; 618553, 4074051;
618566, 4074011; 618572, 4073986; 618574, 4073952; 618568, 4073913;
618533, 4073788; 618521, 4073761; 618495, 4073722; 618496, 4073601;
618482, 4073567; 618369, 4073570; 618365, 4073277; 618364, 4073029;
618261, 4072958; 618212, 4072996; 618157, 4073061; 618131, 4073086;
618090, 4073147; 618078, 4073173; 618064, 4073256; 618067, 4073314;
618081, 4073377; 618072, 4073413; 618044, 4073404; 618015, 4073401;
617985, 4073404; 617957, 4073413; 617931, 4073426; 617902, 4073452;
617885, 4073476; 617873, 4073501; 617927, 4073549; 618040, 4073586;
618063, 4073730; 618123, 4073826; 618134, 4073831; 618168, 4073834;
618228, 4073818; 618235, 4073822; 618191, 4073875; 618082, 4073823;
618062, 4073827; 618042, 4073815; 618025, 4073781; 617967, 4073798;
617970, 4073818; 617934, 4073823; 617913, 4073790; 617874, 4073780;
617778, 4073781; 617786, 4073711; 617701, 4073663; 617644, 4073637;
617551, 4073622; 617545, 4073563; 617491, 4073517; 617470, 4073382;
617262, 4073305; 617237, 4073287; 617138, 4073233; 617100, 4073222;
617071, 4073221; 617032, 4073229; 616997, 4073246; 616968, 4073272;
616946, 4073305; 616934, 4073342; returning to 616931, 4073371.
(9) Unit 3: Vierra Canyon, Monterey County, California.
(i) Subunit 3a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 618886,
4071622; 618896, 4071742; 619157, 4071722; 619431, 4071664; 619441,
4071576; 619441, 4071573; 619385, 4071569; 619171, 4071553; 619166,
4071601; 618901, 4071615; 618892, 4071615; returning to 618886,
4071622.
(ii) Subunit 3b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
620707, 4073069; 620865, 4073146; 620890, 4073140; 620917, 4073128;
620941, 4073111; 620961, 4073089; 620977, 4073064; 620987, 4073037;
620992, 4072992; 620897, 4072908; 620886, 4072879; 620778, 4072930;
620784, 4072971; 620736, 4072950; 620709, 4072963; returning to 620707,
4073069.
(iii) Subunit Unit 3c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle
Prunedale. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 620984, 4073724; 621030, 4073752; 620987, 4073916; 620997,
4073968; 620996, 4073974; 621079, 4074094; 621133, 4074174; 621144,
4074209; 621084, 4074270; 621123, 4074335; 621127, 4074380; 621146,
4074396; 621173, 4074395; 621273, 4074227; 621256, 4074215; 621246,
4074203; 621206, 4074150; 621177, 4074089; 621151, 4074025; 621163,
4073968; 621171, 4073965; 621179, 4073920; 621159, 4073901; 621160,
4073898; 621124, 4073845; 621131, 4073829; 621129, 4073827; 621153,
4073753; 621073, 4073708; 621025, 4073710; returning to 620984,
4073724.
(10) Unit 4: Aguajito, Monterey County, California
(i) Subunit 4a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Seaside. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 602332,
4048354; 602347, 4048427; 602354, 4048439; 602362, 4048452; 602366,
4048456; 602401, 4048489; 602508, 4048576; 602697, 4048582; 602735,
4048574; 602762, 4048562; 602786, 4048545; 602817, 4048507; 602832,
4048471; 602858, 4048345; 603034, 4048312; 603069, 4048294; 603115,
4048262; 603136, 4048241; 603158, 4048209; 603171, 4048172; 603173,
4048133;
[[Page 61572]]
603166, 4048094; 603143, 4048051; 603107, 4048018; 603072, 4048000;
603024, 4047993; 602966, 4048004; 602522, 4048105; 602451, 4048153;
602400, 4048198; 602373, 4048240; 602351, 4048287; returning to 602332,
4048354.
(ii) Subunit 4b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Seaside. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 601574,
4047589; 601594, 4047664; 601625, 4047701; 601657, 4047723; 601695,
4047736; 601778, 4047749; 601839, 4047778; 601926, 4047801; 601965,
4047804; 602014, 4047795; 602048, 4047863; 602058, 4047918; 602064,
4047991; 602022, 4048044; 602000, 4048080; 601988, 4048107; 601973,
4048163; 601962, 4048239; 602022, 4048231; 602007, 4048253; 602060,
4048243; 602206, 4048211; 602231, 4048211; 602246, 4048135; 602250,
4048108; 602256, 4048082; 602264, 4048071; 602278, 4048051; 602309,
4048008; 602318, 4047990; 602345, 4047913; 602355, 4047883; 602350,
4047838; 602325, 4047746; 602278, 4047654; 602262, 4047623; 602199,
4047551; 602130, 4047497; 602054, 4047470; 601996, 4047474; 601864,
4047460; 601773, 4047445; 601743, 4047440; 601704, 4047440; 601657,
4047454; 601611, 4047490; 601582, 4047540; returning to 601574,
4047589.
(iii) Note: Map of Units 4, 5, and 6 (Map 3) follows:
[[Page 61573]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18OC06.002
[[Page 61574]]
(11) Unit 5: Old Capitol, Monterey County, California. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM
Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 599314, 4048918; 599497, 4049056;
599551, 4048997; 599551, 4048976; 599552, 4048959; 599562, 4048939;
599593, 4048923; 599625, 4048931; 599640, 4048934; 599655, 4048928;
599675, 4048937; 599685, 4048913; 599666, 4048844; 599649, 4048821;
599603, 4048784; 599561, 4048761; 599516, 4048757; 599437, 4048777;
599370, 4048808; 599329, 4048864; returning to 599314, 4048918.
(12) Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula, Monterey County, California.
(i) Subunit 6a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 594042,
4049355; 594060, 4049389; 594080, 4049435; 594120, 4049486; 594160,
4049538; 594186, 4049560; 594186, 4049560; 594199, 4049572; 594209,
4049570; 594210, 4049577; 594211, 4049584; 594214, 4049592; 594216,
4049600; 594219, 4049607; 594226, 4049621; 594226, 4049621; 594201,
4049634; 594188, 4049620; 594183, 4049623; 594186, 4049648; 594202,
4049675; 594225, 4049725; 594236, 4049745; 594285, 4049805; 594296,
4049823; 594348, 4049799; 594414, 4049772; 594480, 4049792; 594500,
4049738; 594525, 4049669; 594536, 4049664; 594558, 4049652; 594572,
4049654; 594574, 4049654; 594584, 4049655; 594594, 4049663; 594613,
4049676; 594636, 4049703; 594659, 4049725; 594680, 4049752; 594698,
4049786; 594718, 4049834; 594730, 4049866; 594741, 4049919; 594754,
4049979; 594759, 4049994; 594762, 4050006; 594767, 4050021; 594788,
4050040; 594822, 4050057; 594856, 4050064; 594888, 4050101; 594890,
4050107; 594890, 4050107; 594890, 4050107; 594893, 4050118; 594893,
4050118; 594897, 4050135; 594923, 4050178; 594929, 4050187; 594942,
4050217; 594960, 4050255; 594977, 4050293; 594984, 4050307; 595002,
4050317; 595010, 4050319; 595029, 4050323; 595043, 4050348; 595059,
4050386; 595076, 4050442; 595095, 4050490; 595117, 4050527; 595139,
4050569; 595145, 4050580; 595154, 4050597; 595176, 4050568; 595176,
4050568; 595176, 4050568; 595177, 4050567; 595179, 4050562; 595191,
4050537; 595193, 4050537; 595299, 4050514; 595410, 4050489; 595534,
4050334; 595574, 4050254; 595621, 4050214; 595660, 4050192; 595699,
4050182; 595717, 4050202; 595734, 4050221; 595727, 4050281; 595736,
4050293; 595873, 4050316; 595930, 4050395; 595864, 4050455; 595764,
4050427; 595707, 4050454; 595647, 4050504; 595634, 4050564; 595487,
4050691; 595467, 4050714; 595431, 4050724; 595392, 4050744; 595365,
4050761; 595352, 4050767; 595321, 4050788; 595289, 4050807; 595247,
4050821; 595216, 4050825; 595193, 4050821; 595168, 4050807; 595149,
4050788; 595133, 4050854; 595118, 4050877; 595103, 4050891; 595065,
4050904; 595041, 4050911; 595023, 4050924; 595020, 4050951; 595024,
4050979; 595026, 4051003; 595020, 4051027; 595009, 4051050; 595004,
4051061; 594998, 4051078; 595000, 4051101; 595019, 4051141; 595021,
4051141; 595096, 4051140; 595283, 4050888; 595286, 4050883; 595302,
4050862; 595316, 4050843; 595326, 4050829; 595340, 4050811; 595353,
4050793; 595360, 4050788; 595368, 4050784; 595378, 4050779; 595393,
4050779; 595401, 4050778; 595945, 4051094; 595954, 4051085; 595953,
4051067; 595953, 4051052; 595956, 4051034; 595962, 4051011; 595972,
4050988; 595984, 4050968; 595999, 4050949; 596034, 4050912; 596120,
4050848; 596127, 4050849; 596411, 4050626; 596492, 4050566; 596499,
4050555; 596505, 4050545; 596510, 4050531; 596514, 4050504; 596513,
4050484; 596493, 4050421; 596436, 4050261; 596403, 4050199; 596363,
4050134; 596358, 4050092; 596367, 4050043; 596369, 4050008; 596347,
4049956; 596334, 4049923; 596338, 4049884; 596364, 4049835; 596419,
4049811; 596418, 4049788; 596386, 4049777; 596366, 4049761; 596351,
4049725; 596344, 4049705; 596331, 4049695; 596302, 4049685; 596300,
4049645; 596303, 4049619; 596310, 4049598; 596310, 4049570; 596298,
4049555; 596282, 4049541; 596269, 4049528; 596260, 4049515; 596257,
4049491; 596272, 4049459; 596281, 4049429; 596298, 4049389; 596297,
4049372; 596273, 4049351; 596257, 4049328; 596165, 4049100; 596121,
4048994; 596115, 4048961; 596149, 4048916; 596170, 4048889; 596213,
4048863; 596294, 4048862; 596317, 4048787; 596334, 4048725; 596363,
4048682; 596382, 4048673; 596404, 4048692; 596418, 4048724; 596441,
4048707; 596482, 4048660; 596510, 4048641; 596535, 4048624; 596560,
4048606; 596597, 4048578; 596650, 4048554; 596670, 4048550; 596714,
4048542; 596828, 4048530; 596877, 4048530; 596953, 4048515; 597027,
4048494; 597074, 4048467; 597083, 4048454; 597095, 4048440; 597101,
4048435; 597113, 4048427; 597129, 4048418; 597144, 4048412; 597144,
4048412; 597179, 4048380; 597185, 4048367; 597188, 4048353; 597190,
4048340; 597188, 4048335; 597185, 4048334; 597181, 4048335; 597167,
4048347; 597155, 4048355; 597142, 4048360; 597130, 4048364; 597110,
4048364; 597093, 4048361; 597077, 4048357; 597061, 4048349; 597050,
4048339; 597040, 4048327; 597033, 4048313; 597025, 4048298; 597008,
4048250; 596999, 4048219; 596952, 4048161; 596940, 4048145; 596932,
4048120; 596924, 4048089; 596907, 4048061; 596894, 4048049; 596832,
4048022; 596755, 4047999; 596739, 4047993; 596727, 4047994; 596689,
4047953; 596684, 4047941; 596673, 4047919; 596661, 4047899; 596648,
4047880; 596633, 4047862; 596542, 4047754; 596521, 4047739; 596505,
4047733; 596457, 4047724; 596448, 4047722; 596433, 4047716; 596297,
4047644; 596283, 4047635; 596219, 4047584; 596203, 4047567; 596197,
4047557; 596189, 4047539; 596162, 4047442; 596143, 4047424; 596132,
4047419; 596115, 4047406; 596102, 4047389; 596085, 4047359; 596074,
4047346; 596073, 4047346; 596048, 4047336; 596016, 4047368; 595973,
4047400; 595909, 4047425; 595871, 4047443; 595866, 4047522; 595864,
4047593; 595869, 4047666; 595879, 4047727; 595867, 4047743; 595873,
4047766; 595843, 4047773; 595787, 4047843; 595837, 4047877; 595879,
4047903; 595911, 4047941; 595919, 4047961; 595892, 4047965; 595863,
4047958; 595831, 4047945; 595805, 4047942; 595710, 4047940; 595700,
4047952; 595604, 4048051; 595588, 4048057; 595588, 4048057; 595526,
4048089; 595503, 4048118; 595500, 4048132; 595501, 4048132; 595523,
4048139; 595564, 4048156; 595629, 4048169; 595633, 4048198; 595675,
4048232; 595672, 4048266; 595697, 4048321; 595839, 4048309; 595893,
4048311; 595982, 4048325; 595982, 4048326; 595973, 4048416; 595974,
4048417; 596135, 4048438; 596250, 4048453; 596208, 4048594; 596220,
4048603; 596230, 4048623; 596230, 4048640; 596214, 4048726; 596218,
4048781; 596209, 4048811; 596194, 4048831; 596092, 4048892; 596065,
4048812; 596032, 4048759; 596003, 4048730; 595973, 4048714; 595902,
4048696; 595860, 4048696; 595816, 4048699; 595797, 4048707; 595797,
4048707; 595762, 4048723; 595761, 4048723; 595761, 4048723; 595738,
4048743; 595724, 4048754; 595691, 4048770; 595647, 4048782; 595603,
4048789; 595535, 4048794; 595498, 4048787; 595467, 4048768; 595434,
4048737; 595412, 4048700; 595390, 4048656; 595347, 4048557; 595329,
4048521; 595307, 4048501; 595284,
[[Page 61575]]
4048492; 595254, 4048491; 595253, 4048560; 595225, 4048650; 595206,
4048683; 595202, 4048703; 595204, 4048726; 595225, 4048780; 595225,
4048914; 595221, 4048940; 595134, 4049008; 595110, 4049027; 595080,
4049069; 595055, 4049143; 595117, 4049144; 595138, 4049143; 595159,
4049139; 595177, 4049133; 595194, 4049129; 595211, 4049127; 595227,
4049127; 595274, 4049131; 595291, 4049131; 595308, 4049127; 595322,
4049123; 595348, 4049121; 595406, 4049120; 595417, 4049125; 595437,
4049123; 595459, 4049128; 595480, 4049130; 595499, 4049127; 595516,
4049127; 595527, 4049129; 595545, 4049126; 595578, 4049110; 595609,
4049085; 595627, 4049083; 595670, 4049080; 595745, 4049061; 595776,
4049065; 595849, 4049113; 595883, 4049145; 595905, 4049177; 595928,
4049224; 595759, 4049459; 595669, 4049397; 595607, 4049449; 595585,
4049455; 595551, 4049447; 595530, 4049431; 595480, 4049433; 595477,
4049360; 595505, 4049358; 595511, 4049327; 595522, 4049306; 595551,
4049280; 595538, 4049206; 595524, 4049167; 595514, 4049162; 595495,
4049184; 595407, 4049319; 595397, 4049331; 595379, 4049347; 595359,
4049358; 595245, 4049401; 595233, 4049415; 595233, 4049456; 595168,
4049481; 595109, 4049477; 595063, 4049473; 595058, 4049541; 595079,
4049564; 595101, 4049570; 595119, 4049575; 595140, 4049583; 595150,
4049614; 595159, 4049642; 595129, 4049673; 595089, 4049729; 595067,
4049769; 595039, 4049810; 595027, 4049835; 595027, 4049850; 595037,
4049882; 595060, 4049943; 595073, 4050017; 595084, 4050057; 595080,
4050092; 595068, 4050106; 595039, 4050113; 595011, 4050113; 595000,
4050110; 594992, 4050092; 594983, 4050071; 594980, 4050052; 594952,
4049976; 594931, 4049939; 594909, 4049900; 594877, 4049856; 594837,
4049828; 594813, 4049826; 594781, 4049831; 594762, 4049831; 594743,
4049814; 594724, 4049770; 594673, 4049654; 594653, 4049610; 594587,
4049530; 594576, 4049518; 594569, 4049501; 594573, 4049485; 594616,
4049457; 594661, 4049433; 594719, 4049386; 594766, 4049332; 594781,
4049301; 594781, 4049266; 594774, 4049243; 594767, 4049231; 594766,
4049230; 594743, 4049236; 594740, 4049237; 594731, 4049252; 594720,
4049264; 594713, 4049273; 594705, 4049278; 594675, 4049290; 594647,
4049296; 594627, 4049311; 594614, 4049320; 594602, 4049334; 594583,
4049337; 594573, 4049332; 594557, 4049320; 594543, 4049303; 594543,
4049289; 594547, 4049271; 594547, 4049252; 594538, 4049237; 594472,
4049167; 594453, 4049150; 594437, 4049127; 594416, 4049094; 594390,
4049038; 594378, 4049025; 594360, 4049005; 594350, 4048993; 594342,
4048973; 594275, 4048961; 594283, 4049001; 594348, 4049199; 594354,
4049218; 594277, 4049241; 594269, 4049243; 594268, 4049246; 594262,
4049270; 594243, 4049267; 594200, 4049304; 594176, 4049324; 594099,
4049332; 594097, 4049332; 594090, 4049333; 594078, 4049335; 594059,
4049339; returning to 594042, 4049355.
(ii) Subunit 6b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 593410,
4048743; 593463, 4048782; 593479, 4048793; 593532, 4048832; 593564,
4048847; 593574, 4048849; 593597, 4048853; 593599, 4048854; 593636,
4048853; 593671, 4048844; 593790, 4048784; 593794, 4048779; 593794,
4048778; 593777, 4048726; 593769, 4048678; 593768, 4048678; 593706,
4048686; 593678, 4048693; 593650, 4048707; 593605, 4048738; 593570,
4048750; 593539, 4048752; 593451, 4048741; 593442, 4048741; 593414,
4048743; 593410, 4048743; 593601, 4048844; 593601, 4048844; 593602,
4048844; 593601, 4048844; returning to 593601, 4048844.
(iii) Subunit 6c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
592908, 4049902; 592972, 4049927; 593056, 4049908; 593067, 4049902;
593075, 4049896; 593086, 4049892; 593095, 4049890; 593100, 4049881;
593101, 4049853; 593115, 4049858; 593117, 4049855; 593199, 4049893;
593232, 4049897; 593269, 4049895; 593297, 4049885; 593330, 4049880;
593343, 4049884; 593353, 4049883; 593381, 4049882; 593410, 4049883;
593424, 4049883; 593464, 4049885; 593496, 4049890; 593497, 4049882;
593523, 4049886; 593522, 4049894; 593568, 4049900; 593624, 4049900;
593672, 4049895; 593693, 4049886; 593719, 4049869; 593720, 4049870;
593753, 4049842; 593772, 4049821; 593778, 4049813; 593858, 4049767;
593921, 4049727; 593938, 4049721; 593954, 4049700; 593866, 4049654;
593835, 4049631; 593788, 4049596; 593647, 4049542; 593623, 4049506;
593620, 4049504; 593616, 4049502; 593613, 4049501; 593609, 4049500;
593606, 4049499; 593466, 4049474; 593458, 4049472; 593458, 4049472;
593485, 4049508; 593505, 4049526; 593524, 4049558; 593550, 4049606;
593560, 4049626; 593597, 4049668; 593601, 4049683; 593600, 4049694;
593592, 4049700; 593587, 4049706; 593595, 4049726; 593595, 4049735;
593581, 4049746; 593564, 4049751; 593530, 4049751; 593504, 4049743;
593486, 4049731; 593473, 4049706; 593459, 4049689; 593427, 4049662;
593407, 4049643; 593375, 4049625; 593349, 4049607; 593329, 4049575;
593318, 4049552; 593315, 4049537; 593309, 4049515; 593290, 4049495;
593258, 4049449; 593233, 4049441; 593224, 4049449; 593213, 4049463;
593201, 4049478; 593188, 4049506; 593175, 4049525; 593136, 4049566;
593102, 4049575; 593011, 4049600; 592952, 4049640; 592936, 4049694;
592929, 4049732; 592917, 4049759; 592919, 4049789; 592938, 4049832;
592929, 4049862; 592911, 4049885; returning to 592908, 4049902.
(iv) Subunit 6d: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 591851,
4048564; 591855, 4048576; 591861, 4048580; 591868, 4048583; 591873,
4048588; 591879, 4048594; 591884, 4048602; 591887, 4048610; 591889,
4048617; 591889, 4048625; 591891, 4048632; 591918, 4048685; 591925,
4048690; 591925, 4048690; 591935, 4048688; 591945, 4048672; 591953,
4048660; 591961, 4048648; 591969, 4048636; 592120, 4048437; 592141,
4048411; 592144, 4048397; 592144, 4048351; 592144, 4048317; 592136,
4048297; 592116, 4048287; 592116, 4048287; 592116, 4048287; 592096,
4048293; 592073, 4048322; 592062, 4048334; 592050, 4048344; 592038,
4048354; 591992, 4048388; 591951, 4048418; 591951, 4048418; 591933,
4048448; 591931, 4048452; 591928, 4048456; 591924, 4048461; 591920,
4048466; 591920, 4048466; 591912, 4048476; 591908, 4048485; 591907,
4048489; 591905, 4048496; 591902, 4048503; 591899, 4048510; 591895,
4048517; 591891, 4048523; 591886, 4048529; 591882, 4048534; 591877,
4048538; 591872, 4048543; 591866, 4048548; 591860, 4048552; 591855,
4048556; returning to 591851, 4048564.
(v) Subunit 6e: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 595291,
4052402; 595329, 4052406; 595339, 4052409; 595340, 4052409; 595341,
4052409; 595343, 4052408; 595345, 4052408; 595347, 4052408; 595347,
4052408; 595348, 4052408; 595350, 4052408; 595352, 4052408; 595354,
4052408; 595355, 4052408; 595357, 4052408; 595359, 4052408; 595359,
4052408; 595361, 4052408; 595362, 4052409; 595364, 4052409; 595366,
4052409; 595367, 4052409; 595368, 4052409; 595369, 4052410; 595371,
[[Page 61576]]
4052410; 595373, 4052410; 595375, 4052411; 595376, 4052411; 595378,
4052411; 595380, 4052412; 595381, 4052412; 595383, 4052413; 595385,
4052413; 595386, 4052414; 595388, 4052415; 595390, 4052415; 595391,
4052416; 595393, 4052417; 595395, 4052417; 595396, 4052418; 595398,
4052419; 595399, 4052420; 595401, 4052421; 595402, 4052421; 595404,
4052422; 595405, 4052423; 595407, 4052424; 595408, 4052425; 595410,
4052426; 595411, 4052427; 595413, 4052428; 595413, 4052429; 595425,
4052437; 595487, 4052472; 595545, 4052518; 595568, 4052552; 595573,
4052559; 595784, 4052447; 595838, 4052419; 595828, 4052400; 595798,
4052339; 595762, 4052252; 595750, 4052224; 595736, 4052189; 595703,
4052124; 595687, 4052091; 595683, 4052085; 595672, 4052070; 595634,
4052047; 595633, 4052045; 595631, 4052043; 595630, 4052041; 595629,
4052039; 595628, 4052036; 595627, 4052034; 595626, 4052032; 595625,
4052030; 595624, 4052028; 595623, 4052025; 595622, 4052023; 595621,
4052021; 595620, 4052019; 595619, 4052016; 595618, 4052014; 595618,
4052012; 595617, 4052009; 595616, 4052007; 595616, 4052005; 595615,
4052002; 595615, 4052000; 595614, 4051998; 595614, 4051995; 595613,
4051993; 595613, 4051991; 595613, 4051988; 595613, 4051986; 595612,
4051983; 595612, 4051981; 595612, 4051978; 595612, 4051976; 595612,
4051974; 595612, 4051971; 595612, 4051969; 595612, 4051966; 595612,
4051964; 595612, 4051961; 595612, 4051959; 595613, 4051957; 595613,
4051954; 595613, 4051952; 595614, 4051949; 595614, 4051947; 595614,
4051945; 595615, 4051942; 595615, 4051940; 595616, 4051938; 595617,
4051935; 595617, 4051933; 595618, 4051931; 595619, 4051928; 595619,
4051926; 595620, 4051923; 595624, 4051913; 595628, 4051903; 595633,
4051892; 595638, 4051881; 595643, 4051871; 595654, 4051846; 595656,
4051842; 595662, 4051823; 595552, 4051784; 595422, 4051737; 595412,
4051790; 595404, 4051836; 595403, 4051843; 595403, 4051846; 595402,
4051858; 595401, 4051872; 595399, 4051887; 595397, 4051902; 595394,
4051917; 595391, 4051931; 595389, 4051946; 595386, 4051961; 595382,
4051975; 595378, 4051990; 595375, 4052004; 595370, 4052018; 595370,
4052020; 595369, 4052021; 595366, 4052033; 595361, 4052047; 595356,
4052061; 595351, 4052075; 595346, 4052089; 595340, 4052103; 595334,
4052116; 595331, 4052120; 595329, 4052123; 595324, 4052129; 595324,
4052130; 595323, 4052138; returning to 595291, 4052402.
(13) Unit 7: Point Lobos Ranch, Monterey County, California. From
USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Monterey and Soberanes Point. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 595261,
4040950; 595269, 4041010; 595302, 4041071; 595344, 4041106; 595399,
4041136; 595410, 4041165; 595402, 4041291; 595387, 4041367; 595377,
4041400; 595365, 4041437; 595365, 4041463; 595389, 4041491; 595453,
4041513; 595516, 4041504; 595570, 4041472; 595597, 4041500; 595597,
4041536; 595602, 4041585; 595627, 4041649; 595635, 4041663; 595716,
4041696; 595759, 4041700; 595783, 4041693; 595801, 4041670; 595825,
4041613; 595827, 4041585; 595813, 4041551; 595807, 4041531; 595812,
4041518; 595844, 4041470; 595915, 4041508; 595889, 4041596; 595951,
4041638; 595966, 4041648; 595986, 4041664; 595850, 4041803; 595867,
4041802; 595891, 4041808; 595893, 4041869; 595904, 4041919; 595915,
4041930; 595910, 4041935; 595945, 4041988; 595990, 4042022; 596063,
4042063; 596142, 4042098; 596156, 4042104; 596211, 4042114; 596241,
4042109; 596269, 4042011; 596275, 4041978; 596276, 4041975; 596317,
4041764; 596343, 4041583; 596373, 4041510; 596515, 4041436; 596694,
4041433; 596927, 4041428; 597048, 4041584; 597068, 4041628; 597136,
4041714; 597204, 4041766; 597235, 4041783; 597291, 4041803; 597332,
4041812; 597381, 4041807; 597425, 4041787; 597461, 4041754; 597484,
4041711; 597492, 4041663; 597484, 4041614; 597467, 4041579; 597441,
4041550; 597408, 4041528; 597363, 4041511; 597341, 4041491; 597323,
4041415; 597248, 4041313; 597288, 4041280; 597098, 4041279; 597103,
4041079; 597060, 4041079; 597045, 4041092; 596996, 4041118; 596889,
4041130; 596702, 4041138; 596646, 4041140; 596553, 4041137; 596503,
4041119; 596451, 4041086; 596363, 4041006; 596211, 4040900; 596003,
4040843; 595913, 4040829; 595905, 4040827; 595884, 4040824; 595865,
4040825; 595753, 4040829; 595629, 4040826; 595611, 4040841; 595574,
4040832; 595575, 4040825; 595539, 4040822; 595537, 4040822; 595497,
4040858; 595465, 4040822; 595393, 4040831; 595371, 4040840; 595366,
4040838; 595297, 4040891; returning to 595261, 4040950. Note: Map of
Units 7 and 8 (Map 4) follows:
[[Page 61577]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18OC06.003
BILLING CODE 4319-55-C
[[Page 61578]]
(14) Unit 8: Palo Colorado, Monterey County, California. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle Soberanes Point. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 598818, 4027785;
598823, 4027824; 598834, 4027852; 598855, 4027884; 598877, 4027904;
599017, 4027985; 599111, 4028022; 599176, 4028075; 599179, 4028121;
599198, 4028182; 599233, 4028238; 599262, 4028268; 599316, 4028304;
599373, 4028315; 599431, 4028304; 599479, 4028271; 599498, 4028249;
599518, 4028204; 599522, 4028146; 599508, 4028099; 599476, 4028056;
599471, 4028019; 599511, 4027964; 599527, 4027921; 599543, 4027880;
599551, 4027832; 599546, 4027793; 599531, 4027757; 599514, 4027733;
599484, 4027707; 599430, 4027685; 599362, 4027687; 599326, 4027702;
599282, 4027741; 599266, 4027766; 599135, 4027707; 599026, 4027647;
598988, 4027637; 598949, 4027637; 598893, 4027655; 598855, 4027686;
598830, 4027728; 598821, 4027756; returning to 598818, 4027785.
* * * * *
Dated: October 3, 2006.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-8600 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P