[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60410-60450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5136]



[[Page 60409]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
CriticalHabitat for Piperia yadonii (Yadon's piperia); Final Rule

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

[[Page 60410]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AU34


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Piperia yadonii (Yadon's piperia)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are 
designating critical habitat for the endangered Piperia yadonii 
(Yadon's piperia) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). In total, approximately 2,117 acres (ac) (857 hectares 
(ha)) fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. 
The critical habitat is located in Monterey County, California.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on November 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available 
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, in 
the branch of Endangered Species, at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife 
Office (VFWO), 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. The final 
rule, economic analysis, and map are also available on the Internet at 
http://www.fws.gov/ventura.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, VFWO, at 
the above address (telephone (805) 644-1766, ext. 319; facsimile (805) 
644-3958). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339, 7 days a week and 24 hours a day.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more information 
on Piperia yadonii, refer to the proposed critical habitat rule 
published on October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61546) and the final listing rule 
published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1998 (63 FR 43100).

Previous Federal Actions

    For more information on previous Federal actions concerning Piperia 
yadonii, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal 
Register on August 12, 1998 (63 FR 43100) and proposed critical habitat 
rule published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2006 (71 FR 
61546). On August 7, 2007, we published a notice announcing the 
availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA), and reopening of the 
public comment period (72 FR 44069). This comment period closed on 
September 6, 2007.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii in the proposed 
rule published on October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61546). We also contacted 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific 
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposed rule. The initial comment period ended December 18, 
2006. We published newspaper notices on October 26, 2006, in the 
Monterey Herald, Monterey, California, inviting public comment on the 
proposed critical habitat designation.
    During the comment period that opened on October 18, 2006, and 
closed on December 18, 2006, we received 9 comments directly addressing 
the proposed critical habitat designation: 3 from peer reviewers, 1 
from a State agency, and 5 from organizations or individuals. During 
the comment period that opened on August 7, 2007, and closed on 
September 6, 2007, we received 8 comments directly addressing the 
proposed critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis. 
All of these latter comments were from organizations or individuals and 
some organizations and individuals provided comments during both 
comment periods. Overall, 12 commenters supported a designation of 
critical habitat for P. yadonii, and 3 commenters opposed parts of the 
proposed designation. All comments and new information relating to the 
proposed critical habitat designation for P. yadonii are addressed in 
the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as 
appropriate. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and 
conservation biology principles. We received responses from all three 
peer reviewers. The peer reviewers generally agreed that the technical 
information and primary constituent elements (PCEs) identified in the 
proposed designation were accurate and that those areas that we did 
propose as critical habitat should be included. However, all three peer 
reviewers suggested that the designation should be expanded to include 
additional areas and increase the size of existing units. They also 
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to 
improve the final critical habitat rule and the conservation of the 
species. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary 
and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the 
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical 
habitat for Piperia yadonii, and address them in the following summary.
Peer Reviewer Comments
    1. Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that the proposed 
designation emphasizes land ownership and proposed land use over 
biological or ecological factors in determining the size and boundaries 
of units. The peer reviewer replicated the process we identified in the 
rule and provided an analysis of six of our proposed subunits in Units 
1, 2, and 3 as support for this assertion. The peer reviewer showed 
that those subunits that were on, or surrounded by, typical (non-
conservation oriented) private lands encompassed a substantially 
smaller proportion of the appropriate surrounding habitat for Piperia 
yadonii than those subunits that were on, or surrounded by, lands owned 
by a conservation-oriented organization. The peer reviewer further 
stated that an unbiased designation of critical habitat could provide 
great conservation benefit to P. yadonii, as evidenced by four policies 
in the County of Monterey General Plan update. These policies emphasize 
conservation of designated critical habitat areas in evaluating and 
approving proposed land uses. The peer reviewer recommended that we 
redo the designation, focusing solely on the presence of PCEs and 
eliminating any bias introduced by assigning preference to a hierarchy 
of land ownership types.
    Our Response: Our method for designating areas as critical habitat 
was described in the proposed rule under the sections ``Criteria Used 
to Identify Critical Habitat'' and ``Mapping'' and is reiterated here. 
See our answer to comment 18. In determining the extent

[[Page 60411]]

of lands necessary to ensure the conservation and persistence of 
Piperia yadonii, we identified all areas that contain those biological 
and physical features essential to the conservation of the species. 
These lands include those that are either already protected, managed, 
or otherwise unencumbered by conflicting use (e.g., undeveloped County 
or City parks, proposed preservation areas). These populations are most 
likely to persist into the future and to contribute to the species' 
survival and recovery. We also included undeveloped Federal and State 
lands, then local agency and private lands with recognized resource 
conservation emphasis (e.g., lands owned by a conservation-oriented 
organization, undeveloped County or City parks), and finally other 
agency and private lands.
    We agree that land use considerations were a factor used to 
delineate the boundaries of some units or subunits; however, we did not 
exclude from consideration any subunits based solely on land ownership. 
In those cases where we determined that a site had the features 
essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii, we designated the 
site (e.g., Units 2b and 7). Where a site included a mix of land 
ownership (i.e., lands that were owned or proposed for conservation by 
the State and lands that were not), we typically reduced the subunit to 
the boundaries of the conservation-oriented lands, in an effort to 
minimize the designation of lands that were private or were used or 
proposed for activities that would not be conducive to conservation 
(e.g., development) while ensuring that sufficient lands were 
designated in each unit to enable the unit to serve its conservation 
function. We ensured that our designation included areas distributed 
throughout the geographic range of the species and encompassed the 
habitat variation in elevation, soil types, plant communities, and 
distance from the coast (inland versus coastal) present in P. yadonii 
occupied habitat.
    2. Comment: One peer reviewer supported our inclusion of multiple 
subunits east of Highway 101 in the Prunedale Hills (Unit 3). The peer 
reviewer agreed with the Service's reasons for including these subunits 
(to conserve genetic variation and prevent range collapse) and further 
stated that the plant community at these somewhat xeric, less coastally 
influenced sites may be more stable in the long term, with slower rates 
of successional conversion to oak woodland, than those sites to the 
west. The peer reviewer stated that gradual, successional loss of 
suitable habitat may be a significant threat over the long term and 
suggested that, at a minimum, we scan high-resolution aerial 
photographs of currently occupied sites to identify and delineate 
regions where patches of broken canopy and scattered areas of bare 
ground are visible. The peer reviewer provided historical and current 
aerial photography of four subunits in chaparral and one subunit in 
Monterey pine forest to support the assertion that canopy cover 
throughout the range of Piperia yadonii has increased since the 1930s 
and 1940s.
    Our Response: We have considered the information the peer reviewer 
provided and agree that increased canopy cover in the ridgetop maritime 
chaparral of the Prunedale Hills may threaten Piperia yadonii by 
reducing available habitat. We discussed this in the proposed rule 
under the ``Background'' and ``Special Management Considerations or 
Protections'' sections. Although the vegetation cover in the region in 
which Unit 3 is designated may be increasing more slowly than in those 
areas to the west (in the region of Units 1 and 2), the natural lands 
in and around Unit 3 are also more highly fragmented and developed than 
those areas west of Highway 1, around Units 1 and 2. With increasing 
development, the opportunities to use vegetation management tools, such 
as prescribed fire, which both reduce the vegetation canopy and alter 
soil nutrient availability in ways with which the chaparral plant 
community has evolved, are much reduced. Given the information we 
currently have, that greater fragmentation exists and that known 
population sizes of P. yadonii are generally smaller as one moves east 
in Unit 3, we are not proposing to increase the size of the subunits in 
Unit 3 in an attempt to capture areas of more open canopy. We have 
added discussion to the description of Unit 3, recognizing the 
potentially slower successional changes in Unit 3, and will consider 
this information in making conservation recommendations for the entire 
Prunedale Hills area.
    3. Comment: Two peer reviewers questioned our decision not to 
include in the critical habitat designation those areas where Piperia 
yadonii populations inhabit less than 5 acres and are surrounded by 
development. One peer reviewer stated that not including these smaller 
populations is not conducive to the long-term conservation of the 
species, because they may have large impacts on gene flow and genetic 
diversity and because they can provide connectivity to larger 
populations that we did include in the designation. The peer reviewer 
specifically cited areas that support the Fort Ord, Skyline Drive, and 
Monterey Airport populations, none of which we included in the 
proposal. The peer reviewer urged the Service to work with landowners 
and other entities to develop a coordinated conservation strategy for 
these smaller populations.
    Our Response: We recognize that all populations of Piperia yadonii 
may provide conservation value to the species and we indicated this in 
the proposed rule, as the Peer Reviewer acknowledged, by stating ``* * 
* those populations that have become isolated as a result of 
development may contribute to the conservation of the species through 
educational, research, and other mechanisms, but overall have a lower 
potential for long-term preservation and lesser conservation value to 
the species.'' We believe that small areas with surrounding development 
have a lower conservation value to the species because they are less 
likely to have and maintain the features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. In general, we seek to identify the 
minimum amount and optimum distribution of lands that support the PCEs 
to designate as critical habitat. Therefore, we did not include all 
populations in this designation.
    In determining which sites to select, we concluded that those 
populations that are in highly developed areas are less likely to act 
as intermediaries in facilitating gene flow between populations, 
because pollinators are less likely to successfully move through 
residential and commercial areas to reach these islands of native 
vegetation and because wind-dispersed seeds are less likely to land in 
areas suitable for germination in highly fragmented landscapes. Of the 
specific sites mentioned by the peer reviewer, the Monterey Airport 
property and those fragmented populations along Garden Road are 
surrounded by the greatest level of development. The Skyline Drive site 
(California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) element occurrence (EO) 
19) is on the Monterey Peninsula where we designated the larger 
expanses of Monterey pine forest with larger populations of P. yadonii 
(Subunit 6a) and those smaller sites, like Crocker Grove (Subunit 6d), 
that include plant associations not represented elsewhere.
    The Fort Ord site in Marina (CNDDB EO 9) had not been found in over 
a decade, when a single plant was rediscovered in 2006, while we were 
drafting this rule. The second, more recently discovered Fort Ord site, 
near the boundary of the Monterey Airport,

[[Page 60412]]

consists of fewer than 10 plants. We recognize that the Fort Ord sites, 
particularly the northern one, are geographically isolated from other 
concentrations of Piperia yadonii and, if the northern site is found to 
support a population, it may therefore harbor genetic diversity not 
found elsewhere in the range of P. yadonii. As further information on 
the genetic diversity of this species becomes available, we will 
evaluate it and refine our conservation strategy for P. yadonii. 
However, we cannot determine at this time that the area has the 
features that are essential for the conservation of the species. We 
recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of 
the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for 
the recovery of the species. For this reason, critical habitat 
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is 
unimportant or may not be required for recovery. We will continue to 
work with landowners on the conservation of P. yadonii throughout its 
range, including in those areas that are not designated as critical 
habitat.
    4. Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that there are substantial 
gaps in the scientific information available on the genetics, seed 
dispersal, plant associations, and fire ecology of Piperia yadonii. The 
peer reviewer recommended that we collect this data in order to 
complete the critical habitat designation and to develop management 
strategies for P. yadonii. The peer reviewer provided observations on 
the response of two other Piperia species in California to fire. In one 
example, a small population of P. leptopetala may have been 
substantially reduced in abundance by a chaparral fire and in the 
other, a chaparral fire appears to have stimulated the above-ground 
expression of P. cooperi.
    Our Response: We recognize that information on many attributes of 
the life history, genetics, and habitat needs of Piperia yadonii is 
extremely limited. Our critical habitat designations are based on the 
best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the 
designation. As more complete information becomes available for P. 
yadonii, we will incorporate it into our recovery strategy for this 
species. We appreciate the information the peer reviewer provided on 
fire ecology and recognize that genetic research is being conducted 
that may influence our understanding of genetic diversity within P. 
yadonii. While we do not develop management strategies as part of the 
designation of critical habitat, we do consider site-specific 
management strategies important to the conservation of the species and 
work with land owners, researchers, and others, to develop and 
implement them as part of the recovery process.
    5. Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that we gather more 
information on pollinator flight range and seed dispersal in an attempt 
to determine if the critical habitat units are close enough to allow 
gene flow between them.
    Our Response: We have contacted several research scientists who 
specialize in moths and have reevaluated the available literature on 
pollinators and seed dispersal in orchids. We believe there are no 
additional data available, beyond what we cited in the proposed rule, 
on either the seed dispersal distances of orchids or the flight 
distances of potential pollinators, that would allow us to determine 
the likelihood of gene flow between critical habitat units or subunits. 
While data on the flight distance of relatively large moths in the 
family Sphingidae (sphinx months) exist, very few data are available on 
the distances small moths may transport pollen. In our designation, we 
attempted to address the need to maintain gene flow between patches of 
plants that are within meters of one another. We did so by encompassing 
within the same subunits (e.g., in Units 1 and 2) those patches of 
Piperia yadonii plants that occur on the same ridgeline in maritime 
chaparral, and by encompassing multiple patches of plants within the 
same subunits (e.g., in Unit 6) in Monterey pine forest.
    6. Comment: Two peer reviewers indicated that genetic diversity was 
not adequately considered in the criteria used to designate critical 
habitat. One peer reviewer suggested it could be considered a PCE, or 
that environmental proxies could be used in the absence of information 
on the spatial pattern of genetic variation in Piperia yadonii. One 
peer reviewer noted that genetic research on P. yadonii is underway and 
some results should soon be available.
    Our Response: We agree that little is known about the spatial 
pattern of genetic variation in Piperia yadonii populations, and we are 
aware of, and are interested in, the genetic research on P. yadonii 
being conducted. Based on the Act, PCEs are always habitat features 
rather than intrinsic population characteristics. Therefore, genetic 
diversity cannot be considered a PCE. However, in this designation, we 
did consider that genetic variation may be a reflection of 
environmental variation. We have attempted to encompass variation in 
habitat, as an indicator of populations that may be exposed to 
differing selective pressures, and therefore may have diverged 
genetically and represent a range of genetic variation in P. yadonii. 
As we discussed in the proposed rule under ``Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat,'' our methods included designating sites that 
encompass the range of elevational differences, plant communities, and 
soil types in which P. yadonii occurs.
    7. Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the designation should be 
more conservation-oriented toward Piperia yadonii, given that the 
species is dependent on biological associates, such as mycorhizzal 
(fungal) associates, Monterey pines, and pollinators. The peer reviewer 
indicated that these close associations make Piperia yadonii more 
vulnerable to environmental changes, such as climate change. The peer 
reviewer, therefore, recommended that the rule contain larger areas and 
additional areas beyond what was included in the proposed designation.
    Our Response: We recognize that relatively little specific 
information exists on the relationship of Piperia yadonii to other 
biological associates within its habitat and the vulnerability of those 
associates to broad-scale environmental changes, such as forest 
structure changes due to pathogens or climate change. We previously 
funded research on P. yadonii's breeding system and pollinators in an 
effort to determine the need for, and potential vulnerability of, 
pollinators. This research found that P. yadonii requires pollinators 
to set seed and is, therefore, highly dependent on pollinators, and 
that several of the likely pollinators of P. yadonii in the Monterey 
pine forest are moth species that have broad ranges and habitat 
preferences. Therefore, we are less concerned about the potential for 
environmental changes to affect pollinators in the Monterey pine forest 
plant communities. We recognize that little is known about the relative 
importance of the various species that pollinate P. yadonii, and that 
virtually nothing is known about pollination of P. yadonii in maritime 
chaparral. Therefore we have attempted to encompass the mosaic of 
adjacent plant community types in which patches of P. yadonii occur. 
Recognizing that larger sized units may potentially reduce the risk to 
P. yadonii from environmental change, we have attempted to designate as 
critical habitat areas of sufficient size to accommodate potential 
environmental changes. We have included reference to climate change in 
the discussion of how the PCEs were derived, but have not increased the 
size of any units beyond what we proposed.

[[Page 60413]]

    8. Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the uncertainty of 
Piperia yadonii's actual range, its patchy distribution, and expected 
impacts of climate change constitute sufficient justification to 
designate units outside P. yadonii's known range. The peer reviewer did 
not provide specific suggestions of locations that should be included.
    Our Response: While we generally agree with the rationale presented 
by the reviewer, we only designate critical habitat in areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 
where the best available information indicates that these areas are 
essential to the conservation of the species. We have included areas 
throughout the range of Piperia yadonii within this designation, 
although not every population has been included. Within each portion of 
P. yadonii's range, we reviewed known locations and surrounding habitat 
that support the PCEs. Based on our current information, we have 
concluded that there are no areas outside the species' known range that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and that therefore 
should be included in the designation.

Comments From the Public

    9. Comment: Two commenters noted the thoroughness and quality of 
the technical information in the background section of the proposed 
rule and in the discussion of the PCEs and generally supported a 
designation of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii. However, one 
commenter questioned why the proposed designation did not include all 
or part of every occurrence of P. yadonii. They recommended that the 
designation include all occurrences of P. yadonii and urged the Service 
to add suitable unoccupied habitat to the designation.
    Our Response: See response to comment 3, above.
    10. Comment: Several commenters stated that the level of detail in 
the maps provided was insufficient to determine what proposed areas are 
included or not included in the designation, both on the Monterey 
Peninsula and in northern Monterey County.
    Our Response: We agree that it is often difficult to distinguish 
unit boundaries based on the resolution of maps published in the 
Federal Register. To provide additional clarity, we attempted to 
include adequate descriptions of the units in the proposed rule. We 
have reviewed those unit descriptions and have provided additional 
clarifying information to them in this final designation. For example, 
for units on the Peninsula, we included area names used in the 
environmental impact report for the Pebble Beach Company's proposed 
development (Monterey County 2005). The public can request more 
explicit maps of the designation by contacting our office using any one 
of the methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 
listed above.
    11. Comment: One commenter requested that the 6-acre portion of 
Stevenson School campus be deleted from critical habitat Subunit 6a, on 
the Monterey Peninsula, because the school intends to convert the 
property to an athletic field for student use in the future. The 
commenter states that, due to the property's small size and location, 
this area is not essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii, that 
enough habitat is being conserved on the Monterey Peninsula via the 
Pebble Beach Company's proposed mitigation for their development plan, 
and that the inclusion of school property in the proposed designation 
will have adverse impacts on the school. They provided materials 
describing the school and its proposed site plan.
    Our Response: As we developed the designation, we evaluated all 
areas on the Monterey Peninsula that support the PCEs, including the 
area owned by Stevenson School. The Monterey Peninsula is the center of 
distribution of Piperia yadonii and supports over 70 percent of all 
known plants. The Stevenson School property supports Monterey pine 
forest contiguous with a larger extent of Monterey pine forest 
encompassed within Subunit 6a. Because of its connection to other 
Monterey pine forest with a natural understory, we do not consider it 
too small to have the features that are essential to the conservation 
of P. yadonii. Although it has abundant shrub cover in some areas, in 
other areas it supports a more open herbaceous understory with 
scattered patches of P. yadonii (Steeck, 2007). We evaluated the 
materials submitted by the commenter and the potential economic costs 
to Stevenson School from the proposed designation in our draft economic 
analysis. Based on the School's proposed plans for the site, we have 
decided to exclude this property from the final designation of critical 
habitat (see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below 
for more information). We are available to work with Stevenson School 
representatives on the conservation and recovery of P. yadonii and 
their future school development plans.
    12. Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat on the 
Pebble Beach Company's property should include only those areas 
designated by the Pebble Beach Company for conservation purposes. They 
asserted that other areas are not essential to the conservation of P. 
yadonii. They provided specific recommendations for modifications to 
several subunits, including excising all current and proposed roads 
that pass through the subunits of Unit 6.
    Our Response: We reviewed the materials submitted and grouped the 
requested modifications into four categories: (a) Requests to remove 
all current and proposed roads from the subunits of Unit 6; (b) small 
adjustment in boundaries where the designation appeared to extend 
beyond the boundaries of a proposed conservation or open space area 
into, or just beyond, existing roads or the golf course; (c) requests 
to remove areas supporting existing Monterey pine forest that the 
commenter indicates are ``lots of record'' but that Monterey County 
required be conserved, as mitigation, in the final environmental impact 
report (Monterey County 2005) for the Pebble Beach Company's proposed 
development; and (d) more substantial modifications, which we 
individually discuss in the response to Comment 13, below.
    We addressed the former three categories in the following ways:
    (a) Roads: The Service does not typically map critical habitat at 
this level of detail, due to the time involved in attempting to exclude 
small, linear areas that lack the PCEs and would divide polygons. Lands 
covered by roads or other structures that do not support the PCEs are 
excluded by text in the final rule, as explained in the Mapping 
section. We recognize that some roads currently exist, but that 
adjustments to their current alignments are proposed that would 
eliminate habitat containing the PCEs. We have excluded, under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, proposed and existing roads in Unit 6 in 
recognition of the conservation agreement signed by the Service and 
Pebble Beach Company. This agreement and the exclusions are discussed 
further in the section, Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved 
Management Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below. 
See Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, below, for more information.
    (b) We have made some adjustments to the boundary of critical 
habitat in Subunit 6a around the corporate yard (a proposed development 
parcel (Monterey County 2005)), along Congress Road near the quarry 
site (extension of

[[Page 60414]]

boundary over a road), and north of area I-1 (where a relatively 
recently constructed structure is visible in 2005 aerial photography).
    (c) We have excluded areas within Subunits 6a and 6c, including 
those referred to by the Pebble Beach Company as areas F-1, J, and part 
of Area L, that support the PCEs of critical habitat and are identified 
as required mitigation areas, with some allowance for development, in 
the FEIR for Pebble Beach Company's proposed development (Monterey 
County 2005). We make these exclusions in recognition of the 
conservation agreement signed by the Service and Pebble Beach Company. 
This agreement and the exclusions are discussed further in the section, 
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management Plans--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below. See Summary of 
Changes from Proposed Rule, below, for more information.
    13. Comment: A commenter representing the Pebble Beach Company 
suggested that we consider that two areas included in Unit 6 of the 
proposal, Indian Village/Area L (Subunit 6c) and Area B (Subunit 6e), 
contain greater shrub cover or riparian habitat than Piperia yadonii 
typically prefers. They also recommended we remove a portion of Subunit 
6a referred to as Area D and reduce Unit 4 (Aguajito), to encompass 
only the suitable low-growing maritime chaparral habitat contiguous 
with the existing occurrence.
    Our Response: We have retained both Area B and its adjacent 
forested areas in Subunit 6e, as well as part of Area L and adjacent 
forest (Indian Village) in subunit 6c in this designation, because they 
contain the PCEs for Piperia yadonii. We have concluded that these 
areas have the features that are essential to conserve P. yadonii. We 
have excluded 2 ac (0.8 ha) of Subunit 6e (Area B) and about 9 acres (4 
ha) of Area L in recognition of the overall benefits that designated 
critical habitat areas will receive under the conservation agreement 
signed by the Service and the Pebble Beach Company (see the section 
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management Plans--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below for a discussion of 
this exclusion).
    For Unit 4 (Aguajito), we have reviewed the habitat proposed in the 
subunits and have considered the unique nature of the maritime 
chaparral on the shale and sandstone-derived soils within a large 
expanse of maritime chaparral and Monterey pine forest and concluded 
that the subunits we are designating contain the features essential to 
the conservation of P. yadonii. However, we have excluded 49 acres of 
this unit in recognition of the overall benefits that Unit 4 will 
receive under the conservation agreement signed by the Service and the 
Pebble Beach Company (see the section Relationship of Critical Habitat 
to Approved Management Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act below for a discussion of this exclusion).
    We have reviewed the habitat in subunit 6a, Area D, and agree with 
the commenter that it does not contain the features essential for the 
conservation of Piperia yadonii. We conclude that the dominance of 
coast live oak and open canopy with relatively few Monterey pines makes 
it less suitable for P. yadonii. Therefore, we have removed 35 ac (14 
ha) of Subunit 6a that do not contain the PCEs from this final critical 
habitat designation. See Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, below, 
for more information.
    14. Comment: Three commenters recommended expansion of Subunit 6a 
to include Area F-2, about 17 acres (7 ha) in Area F3, and an 
additional 13 ac (5 ha) of Area PQR, as defined in the Pebble Beach 
Company's proposed development.
    Our Response: We did not propose or designate Areas F-2, most of F-
3, or the 13 ac (5 ha) in PQR because these locations support fewer 
Piperia yadonii plants compared to other locations in the Del Monte 
Forest that we are designating as critical habitat. These areas are 
also proposed for development by the Pebble Beach Company. Although we 
proposed conservation area F-1 as critical habitat, it is part of the 
exclusion we are making in this final designation, based on the 
conservation agreement we have signed with the Pebble Beach Company. 
See the section Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management 
Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below for a 
discussion of this exclusion. Please also see our response to Comment 1 
and 18.
    15. Comment: One commenter suggested that the Service should expand 
Subunit 6b to include all of Area MNOUV, which supports one of the two 
largest occurrences of Piperia yadonii known to exist. Area MNOUV is 
the name given to the collective areas that support 116 acres of 
Monterey pine forest and are proposed for development as a golf course 
by the Pebble Beach Company. The commenter referred to language in our 
proposed designation in which we indicated that the conservation role 
of P. yadonii critical habitat units is to support viable core 
populations. The commenter stated that Area MNOUV supports one of two 
viable core populations on the Peninsula and, as such, the Service 
should follow its own guidelines and include it in the designation.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 18 for a 
description of how we designated critical habitat. We recognize that 
Subunit 6b is just one part of the large Piperia yadonii population 
found in Area MNOUV. Area MNOUV supports one of the two largest 
occurrences known to exist and is distributed within the second largest 
expanse of Monterey pine forest known to support P. yadonii. However, 
the Service determined the area did not have the features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species. We determined the 
quantity and spatial characteristics of habitat needed for 
conservation, and this area was determined not to meet the definition 
of critical habitat. Please also see our response to Comment 1.
    16. Comment: One commenter asked if Subunits 3b and 3c were 
verified to support Piperia yadonii.
    Our Response: According to data supplied by the California 
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) during the preparation of the 
proposed rule (Robison 2006), populations of Piperia yadonii in 
Subunits 3b and 3c were visited while in flower and were verified to 
support the species.
    17. Comment: One commenter provided observations of habitat and 
population conditions of Piperia yadonii in and around Subunit 3a and 
suggested the designation be expanded to include a site near Subunit 3a 
that may contain many more P. yadonii than previously documented. The 
commenter stated that the planning process for the parcel where the 
population occurs did not appear to involve adequate surveys for P. 
yadonii, because the surveys were conducted during the fall. The 
commenter provided suggestions for protecting this site.
    Our Response: We appreciate the technical information supplied and 
have incorporated it into the discussion of Subunit 3a, where 
appropriate. The population in question near Subunit 3a should be 
surveyed to get a positive identification of the Piperia species 
occurring there. Because we cannot determine at this time that the area 
meets the definition of critical habitat, we are not designating it in 
this final rule. The process of designating critical habitat does not 
involve the creation of preserves or management strategies; however, we 
frequently provide conservation recommendations to local agencies, and 
work with Federal

[[Page 60415]]

agencies through the section 7 consultation process, as we promote 
recovery of listed species. We will consider the technical information 
and suggestions provided by the commenter in planning and implementing 
recovery for this species.

Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis

    18. Comment: The Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) fails to present a 
baseline that describes the conditions that would exist in the absence 
of critical habitat designation. Specifically, NPCC commented that the 
DEA estimated a large portion of the costs would be incurred by the 
Pebble Beach Company (PBC), but PBC would incur these costs with or 
without designation. While the DEA ``directly attributed'' PBC's costs 
of invasive species control to designation, invasive species control 
provides many benefits, is required by CEQA, and was conducted in all 
areas, whether or not the species was present. Others commented that 
the DEA attributes delays to the designation that might be due to other 
sources.
    Our Response: The Final Economic Analysis (FEA) includes an 
Appendix which describes impacts expected to result because of the 
designation of critical habitat. That is, the Appendix presents the 
incremental impacts that would not be expected to occur in the absence 
of critical habitat. This appendix recognizes that most of the impacts 
quantified as coextensive impacts in the report are expected to occur 
regardless of the designation of critical habitat.
    19. Comment: The DEA makes no attempt to estimate how many projects 
or actions would involve a Federal nexus in the 20-year analysis and 
that the FEA should base estimates on such a prediction.
    Our Response: Appendix A of the FEA identifies projects that 
involve a Federal nexus to estimate the incremental impacts of the 
designation apart from the coextensive impacts quantified in the DEA.
    20. Comment: It is unlikely that the restriction on development in 
unit 2b is due to the proposed rule. It is also unlikely that the 
development in unit 2b would have been completely prevented.
    Our Response: The DEA does not attribute these impacts from lost 
development to the proposed rule, but describes them as impacts 
``coextensive'' with the designation of critical habitat. The FEA 
includes an Appendix describing incremental impacts. As described in 
Appendix A, the foregone development impacts in unit 2 are not 
considered to be incremental impacts of the critical habitat 
designation. Further, in the specific case of the proposed development 
in unit 2b, the FEA omits most of the impact from lost development that 
was originally included in the DEA, as information suggests it is 
unlikely that the entity will be prevented from developing.
    21. Comment: To estimate the cost of delay, the DEA solely relies 
on conversations with the developer and uses an interest rate of 
fifteen percent without explanation.
    Our Response: The DEA relied as much as possible on the County 
Planning and Building Department to determine what development had 
occurred in the past, what development was currently under review, and 
what development was planned for the future. The developer provided 
reasonable estimates of delay time. An interest rate of fifteen percent 
is a standard interest rate used to calculate the risk adjusted cost of 
capital to private developers.
    22. Comment: The DEA estimates on page 34 and 44 costs to PBC of as 
much as $4.5 million associated with invasive species control. 
Commenter states that it is unclear how the overall $4.5 million figure 
was determined.
    Our Response: The DEA does not include any estimated impacts of 
$4.5 million as described. Total impacts to the PBC over 20 years in 
undiscounted dollars of invasive species removal efforts is estimated 
to be $0.97 million in units 4 and 5 (see page 34 of the DEA) and $2.87 
million in unit 6 (see page 44 of the DEA). As cited in footnotes 92 
and 104 of the DEA, impacts to the PBC are based on annual budget 
estimates provided by PBC.
    23. Comment: Commenter states that the DEA does not evaluate the 
evidence the Stevenson School provided on the large adverse impacts to 
the School. The commenter also noted that DEA does not comply with the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) or Small Business Regulatory Fairness 
Act (SBREFA) as it does not adequately analyze the impacts to the 
Stevenson School.
    Our Response: The FEA incorporates the previous comments made by 
the Stevenson School and evaluates impacts of piperia conservation on 
the School. Section V.F of the FEA estimates impacts to range from 
$0.006 million to $9.2 million (present value, three percent discount 
rate) as a result of possible restrictions on the implementation of the 
School's Master Plan. The FEA also considers the impacts to the 
Stevenson School in the RFA and SBREFA.

Comments from the State

    24. Comment: The California Coastal Commission questioned why the 
critical habitat designation on the Monterey Peninsula did not include 
any areas proposed for development by the Pebble Beach Company, 
including that part of the Monterey pine forest that supports roughly 
one-third of the known population of Piperia yadonii and is proposed 
for a golf course. The Coastal Commission noted that the Service 
provided no biological justification for the absence of this area in 
the designation. They recommended that the critical habitat be redrawn 
to include Monterey pine forest areas on the Monterey Peninsula that 
support P. yadonii and its habitat.
    Our Response: During the process of selecting critical habitat 
boundaries, we determined the PCEs for the species, and identified the 
quantity and spatial characteristics of PCEs needed for conservation. 
These are the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. In determining the appropriate spatial 
arrangement of PCEs, we identified areas where there were conflicts 
with development projects and assessed the likelihood of the species' 
persistence and recovery absent designation of those areas. We 
determined that there was sufficient habitat for the species 
conservation without these lands. Therefore, our critical habitat 
designation does not include Pebble Beach Company development lands.
    We used a multi-step process to identify and delineate critical 
habitat units. First, we reviewed and mapped all known occurrences of 
Piperia yadonii, using the best available information. Next, we 
determined the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. To do this we defined the PCEs and then 
determined which areas contain PCEs that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. We evaluated which occupied areas were 
most likely to contribute to the long-term persistence of the species. 
We focused on locations with larger occurrences in larger areas of 
contiguous native habitat (greater than 5 acres (2 ha), see below) that 
are more likely to support intact ecosystem processes and biotic 
assemblages, provide areas for population growth, and opportunities for 
colonization of adjacent areas. We then selected sites with the PCEs 
that: (a) Represented the geographic range of the species; (b) captured 
peripheral populations; (c) included the range of plant communities and 
soil types in which P.

[[Page 60416]]

yadonii is found; (d) encompassed the elevation range over which the 
species occurs; and (e) maintained the connectivity of occurrences that 
grow on continuous ridgelines. From these areas we selected populations 
are most likely to persist into the future and to contribute to the 
species' survival and recovery. Other areas that we determined to have 
the PCEs, that were not included in the proposed designation or this 
final designation, did not have the features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. For more information on how critical 
habitat was determined, see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat 
section, below.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    In preparing the final critical habitat designation for Piperia 
yadonii, we reviewed and considered comments from the public and peer 
reviewers on the proposed designation of critical habitat published on 
October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61546), and public comments on the draft 
economic analysis published on August 7, 2007 (72 FR 44069). As a 
result of comments received on the proposed rule and the DEA, and a 
reevaluation of the proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
changes to our proposed designation, as follows:
    (1) Based on exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 
reduced the size of several subunits of Unit 6 on the Monterey 
Peninsula and both subunits of Unit 4 (Aguajito) as discussed in 
responses to Comments 12 and 13 and in recognition of the development 
of a conservation agreement signed by the Service and the Pebble Beach 
Company. Collectively, this resulted in a reduction of Unit 6 from 
1,059 acres (428 ha) to 920 acres (372 ha) and Unit 4 from 157 acres 
(63.5 ha) to 108 acres (43.7 ha). The acreages of the changes are 
provided in Table 2. We also excluded the Stevenson School for economic 
reasons. Further discussion of the conservation agreement and 
exclusions under the Act can be found later in this document starting 
with the section Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (2) We added the names of parcels of land, where available, to the 
unit descriptions, to help readers understand the boundaries of the 
designation, given the rather low resolution of the maps. We added 
technical information, as discussed in the comments, to the 
descriptions of Unit 3.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means 
to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to 
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 
which the measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The 
designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or 
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 
conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public 
access to private lands. Section 7 of the Act is a purely protective 
measure and does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, 
or enhancement measures.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species must first have features 
that are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat 
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific 
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs 
of the species (areas on which are found the primary constituent 
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
    Unoccupied areas can be designated as critical habitat. However, we 
will designate unoccupied areas only when the best available scientific 
data demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species require 
additional areas.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, the Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the 
Endangered Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; 
H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by 
the Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide 
guidance to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the 
best scientific data available. They require Service biologists to the 
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific 
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as 
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When 
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of 
information is generally the listing package for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and 
expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in 
accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines 
issued by the Service.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may 
eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the 
species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal 
that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be 
required for recovery.
    Areas that support populations of Piperia yadonii, but are outside 
the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to 
conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and 
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information 
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information

[[Page 60417]]

available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available in determining areas that contain features 
that are essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. This 
includes information from the final listing rule; data from research 
and survey observations published in peer-reviewed articles; reports 
and survey forms prepared for Federal, State, and local agencies, and 
private corporations; site visits; regional Geographic Information 
System (GIS) layers, including soil and species coverages; and data 
submitted to the CNDDB. We have also reviewed available information 
that pertains to the ecology, life history, and habitat requirements of 
this species. This material included information and data in peer-
reviewed articles, reports of monitoring and habitat characterizations, 
reports submitted during section 7 consultations, the recovery plan for 
P. yadonii, and information received from local species experts. We did 
not designate as critical habitat any areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing.
    The range of Piperia yadonii extends through Monterey County from 
the Las Lomas area near the Santa Cruz County border in the north to 
approximately 15 miles (25 kilometers) south of the Monterey Peninsula 
near Palo Colorado Canyon (Morgan and Ackerman 1990, 208-210; Allen 
1996, unpaginated). This range has been divided into the following five 
geographic areas for the purposes of recovery planning efforts: (1) The 
Monterey Peninsula; (2) the area interior of the Monterey Peninsula; 
(3) northern Monterey County-Prunedale-Elkhorn; (4) the Point Lobos 
Ranch area; and (5) the Palo Colorado Canyon area (USFWS 2004, pp. 16-
26, 50-52). We make reference to these geographic areas when describing 
the locations of P. yadonii populations and lands in this critical 
habitat designation.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical or biological features (PCEs) that 
are essential to the conservation of the species, and within areas 
occupied by the species at the time of listing, that may require 
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are 
not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for 
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other 
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for 
breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and 
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of 
the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
    The specific PCEs required for Piperia yadonii are derived from the 
biological needs of P. yadonii as described in the Background section 
of the proposed rule and below.

Space for Individual and Population Growth, Including Sites for Seed 
Dispersal and Germination

    Piperia yadonii depends on adequate space for growth, reproduction 
between near and far neighbors, and for movement of seeds via wind to 
unoccupied microsites within populations, to population boundaries, and 
to new sites. Once dispersed, seeds must settle into sites with 
characteristics appropriate for germination, including the presence of 
fungal associates necessary for post-germination development. Maritime 
chaparral and pine forest communities in which P. yadonii and its 
fungal symbionts occur, exhibit considerable variability in vegetation 
density, species composition, and unvegetated gaps such that microsites 
appropriate for germination and growth are distributed unevenly 
throughout this mosaic.
    Plant communities such as maritime chaparral, Monterey pine forest, 
and coast live oak woodland are dynamic; in the absence of fire, 
maritime chaparral succeeds to oak woodland in mesic sites and to low-
diversity stands of large old-age manzanitas in drier sites (Van Dyke 
et al. 2001). The patchy distribution of P. yadonii in a given forest 
or chaparral site in a single year is a reflection of the habitat 
conditions at that particular time. Habitat sites that contain the same 
soil characteristics and plant community may become suitable and 
occupied in future decades as vegetation structure changes due to shrub 
or tree death and growth or herbivore population sizes or movements. In 
the same manner, a currently occupied location may diminish in value 
due to these changing conditions. The mosaic of vegetation height, 
density, and species composition in a given area provides opportunities 
for gene flow between occurrences of P. yadonii through seed dispersal 
on prevailing winds, and promotes continuation of ecosystem processes, 
such as the biological interactions necessary to maintain forest canopy 
and dominant manzanita species, and pollinator assemblages.
    Maintaining large and small populations of Piperia yadonii is 
essential for the long-term conservation of the species. Large 
occurrences of plants and those with higher densities of individuals 
are more likely to attract insect pollinators necessary for the 
production of viable seed and promote gene flow (Kunin 1997, p. 232-
233) and withstand periodic extreme environmental stresses (e.g., 
drought, disease), and may act as important ``source'' populations to 
allow recolonization of surrounding areas following periodic extreme 
environmental stresses. Small populations of plants may serve as 
corridors for gene flow between larger populations, and may harbor 
greater levels of genetic diversity than predicted for their size 
(Lesica and Allendorf 1995, pp. 172-175).

Nutritional and Physiological Requirements, Including Light and Soil 
Requirements

    Piperia yadonii occurs in maritime chaparral, a coastal shrub 
association dominated by endemic species of manzanitas. It is most 
often found on ridges where exposed sandstone or decomposed granitic 
soils are shallow and where the dominant manzanita species are low-
growing (preliminary measurements indicate an average of 6 inches (15 
centimeters) tall (Graff 2006, pp. 5-6)), allowing P. yadonii leaves to 
receive filtered sun and the inflorescence to extend above the 
decumbent manzanita branches. In the Elkhorn-Prunedale area, the 
transition from the low-growing manzanitas of the ridgetops to the 
surrounding slopes that support deeper soils and higher vegetation 
canopies is often abrupt (Van Dyke et al. 2001, p. 222).
    Although Piperia yadonii grows among manzanitas, the specific 
manzanita species vary among the geographic areas within the species 
range. Hooker's manzanita (Arctostyphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri) is the 
manzanita species with which P. yadonii most commonly grows at its most 
northern distribution in the hills around Prunedale. Pajaro manzanita 
(A. pajaroensis) and chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) are other 
dominant shrubs in maritime chaparral there. On and south of the 
Monterey Peninsula, several manzanitas (A. hookeri, A. tomentosa, and 
A. glandulosa ssp. zacaensis) are reportedly the dominant shrubs among 
which it grows (Graff 2006, p. 4; EcoSystems West 2006, p. 64). Other 
species of manzanita (A. glandulosa) and manzanita hybrids are

[[Page 60418]]

the dominant low-growing forms at the southernmost occurrence of P. 
yadonii near Palo Colorado Canyon, where Hooker's manzanita is absent 
(Norman 1995, Graff 2006, p. 4).
    In Monterey pine forest, Piperia yadonii grows through pine needle 
duff where the native herbaceous vegetation cover is typically sparse, 
but diverse, and the Monterey pine canopy is of moderate density (20 to 
70 percent on the Monterey Peninsula), providing filtered sunlight to 
the forest floor (EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 43, 62-68). The understory 
plant species most frequently associated with P. yadonii in the 
Monterey pine forest are the perennial herb common sanicle (Sanicula 
laciniata), leafy bent grass (Agrostis pallens), and spindly forms of 
bush monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus). In a habitat characterization 
of P. yadonii on the Monterey Peninsula, microsites occupied by P. 
yadonii had five times greater cover by other native geophytes 
(perennial plants with underground storage organs, such as bulbs, 
tubers, or corms), such as golden brodiaea (Tritelia ixiodes), blue 
dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), and mariposa lilies (Calochortus spp.) 
than did microsites lacking P. yadonii. Where a maritime chaparral 
understory exists with scattered pines, P. yadonii occurs with other 
native herbs in gaps between the shrubs. It occurs in similar gaps 
associated with trails and fire roads in the Bishop pine-Gowen cypress 
forest stand within the Monterey pine forest on the Monterey Peninsula. 
It is not typically found in areas with a coast live oak canopy or 
those with high understory cover of shrubs or vines (EcoSystems West 
2006, pp. 50-51, 62-68).
    It is likely that in some areas the composition and cover of the 
Monterey pine herbaceous understory may remain relatively stable for 
decades due to abiotic factors (e.g., soils, hydrology); in others, 
these appropriate microhabitats may be ephemeral, disappearing as 
shrubs establish or increase in size and appearing elsewhere when 
understory fire; burrowing, trailing, and browsing animals; or shrub 
death, create new gaps. Areas should be of sufficient size to sustain 
the plant communities in which Piperia yadonii grows, given that 
climate change may eventually alter forest composition (and thus 
availability of filtered sunlight), available soil moisture, and 
mycorrhizal associates (Perry et al. 1990, pp. 266-274; Field et al. 
1999, pp. 1-3; Noss 2001, pp. 581-586).
    Although soils supporting native mycorrhizal symbionts are believed 
to be a requirement for successful growth in Piperia yadonii, this is 
not a habitat feature easily observable in the field or about which we 
have specific information. Therefore, we have not included it as a 
primary constituent element for P. yadonii, but assume that mycorrhizal 
associates will be represented in areas that encompass appropriate 
vegetation and soils.
    Piperia yadonii occupies soils that are primarily characterized as 
sands, fine sands, and sandy loams by the Soil Conservation Service 
mapping (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1978, maps; 
EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 23-26). Soils where P. yadonii occurs in the 
Monterey pine forest are typically characterized as sands, rather than 
loams and, on the Monterey Peninsula, are frequently underlain by a 
claypan that is 1 to 5 feet (0.3 to 1.5 m) below the surface (USDA 
1978, pp. 53-54; Jones and Stokes Associates 1994b, pp. 16-21; 
EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 23-26)). In a comparison of Monterey pine 
forest sites on and east of the Monterey Peninsula, P. yadonii was 
present in soils that tended to have lower organic matter, lower 
nutrient levels, and lower summer soil moisture levels than areas where 
it was absent (EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 43, 59-61). It is not known if 
P. yadonii actually prefers nutrient-poor soils or if it is unable to 
compete with the denser understory vegetation found on more nutrient-
rich soils. The presence of P. yadonii is correlated with the drier of 
the forest soils. It is not found in riparian areas or wetlands on the 
Monterey Peninsula (Allen, unpaginated; EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 59-
61, 64-65).
    In the maritime chaparral at its northern distributional limit, 
Piperia yadonii occurs on ridges supporting shallow, weathered, sandy 
soils with sandstone outcrops, where shrubs are small-statured (USDA 
1978, pp. 10-11; Allen 1996 unpaginated; Graff 2006, p. 4). The average 
shrub canopy height in areas where P. yadonii occurs on these ridges is 
about 6 inches, according to preliminary sampling (Graff 2006, pp 5-6). 
Soils in this region are typically derived from weathered marine 
deposits. These sites often support cryptogamic soil crusts (soil 
surface communities primarily composed of cyanobacteria, lichens, 
mosses, and algae) (Graff 2006, p. 4). Cryptogamic crusts have been 
found to increase nutrient availability to plants, reduce erosion, 
improve plant-water relations, and provide germination and seedling 
growth sites (USDA 1997, pp. 8-11).

Pollinators

    Piperia yadonii also requires pollinators for the production of 
viable seeds (PCE 2) (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 15). Size and 
configuration of plant populations, and associated flowering species, 
may influence the degree to which pollinators are attracted to an area 
(Sipes and Tepedino 1995, p. 937). The abundance of pollinators may 
affect reproductive success and persistence of small plant populations 
(Groom 1998, pp. 487-495). As a group, the reproductive output of 
orchids is limited by pollinator availability or activity (Tremblay et 
al. 2005, p. 24), and P. yadonii had reduced seed set under natural 
pollination as compared to manual pollination (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 
12-13), an indication that seed set in this species may be pollinator 
limited. When populations of flowering individuals are small or 
flowering is restricted to a specific season, the individual plant 
population may not be able to sustain a population of insect 
pollinators by itself (Groom 1998, pp. 493-495); therefore, habitats 
that support a variety of other flowering plant species that provide 
nectar and pollen sources throughout spring and summer for pollinator 
populations are likely needed to sustain P. yadonii populations.
    Doak and Graff (2001, p. 13) found that pollinators of Piperia 
yadonii are predominantly nocturnal, short-tongued moths (e.g., in the 
families Pyralidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, Pterophoridae) that are 
most active between the hours of 8:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Some of these 
pollinator species (e.g., Agrotis ipsilon, Udea profundalis) are 
generalists regarding larval host plants, but others (e.g., Elpiste 
marcescaria, Drepanulatrix baueraia) feed on specific host plants in 
the larval stage (e.g., coyote bush, wild lilac, respectively). Piperia 
yadonii exists within several plant communities that sustain insect 
pollinators. They do so by supporting those flowering plant species 
needed by pollinators as larval hosts or nectar sources (e.g., 
coyotebush, wild lilac, and species in the mint family).

Primary Constituent Elements for Piperia yadonii

    Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known 
physical or biological features (Primary Constituent Elements; PCEs, 
laid out in sufficient quantity and appropriate spatial arrangement for 
conservation) essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. All 
areas being designated as critical habitat for P. yadonii are occupied, 
within the species' historic

[[Page 60419]]

geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support life history 
functions for this species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and 
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain 
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined 
that the Piperia yadonii PCEs are:
    1. A vegetation structure providing filtered sunlight on sandy 
soils:
    a. Coastal pine forest (primarily Monterey pine) with a canopy 
cover of 20 to 70 percent, and a sparse herbaceous understory on 
Baywood sands, Narlon loamy fine sands, Sheridan coarse sandy loams, 
Tangair fine sands, Santa Lucia shaly clay loams and Chamise shaley 
clay loams underlain by a hardpan; or
    b. Maritime chaparral ridges with dwarfed shrubs (primarily 
Hooker's manzanita) on Reliz shaly clay loams, Sheridan sandy loams, 
Narlon sandy loams, Arnold loamy sands and soils in the Junipero-Sur 
complex, Rock Outcrop-Xerorthents Association, and Arnold-Santa Ynez 
complex often underlain by rock outcroppings.
    2. Presence of nocturnal, short-tongued moths in the families 
Pyralidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, and Pterophoridae.
    This designation is designed for the conservation of areas 
supporting the PCEs necessary to support the life history functions 
that were the basis for the proposal. In general, critical habitat 
units are designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to support 
one or more of the species' life history functions. Each area 
designated in this rule has been determined to contain sufficient PCEs 
to provide for one or more of the life history functions of P. yadonii. 
Because not all life history functions require all the PCEs, not all 
critical habitat will uniformly contain all the PCEs.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we used the best 
scientific data available in determining areas that contain features 
that are essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. This 
includes information from the final listing rule; data from research 
and survey observations published in peer-reviewed articles; reports 
and survey forms prepared for Federal, State, and local agencies, and 
private corporations; site visits; regional Geographic Information 
System (GIS) layers, including soil and species coverages; and data 
submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). We are 
not designating as critical habitat any areas outside the geographical 
area presently occupied by the species.
    We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the 
ecology, life history, and habitat requirements of this species. This 
material included information and data in peer-reviewed articles, 
reports of monitoring and habitat characterizations, reports submitted 
during section 7 consultations, our recovery plan, and information 
received from local species experts.
    We are designating critical habitat on lands within the geographic 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing that continues to 
be occupied to date. All critical habitat units contain habitat with 
features essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. We did not 
designate any units that are unoccupied.
    We used a multi-step process to identify and delineate critical 
habitat units. First, we mapped and reviewed all known occurrences of 
Piperia yadonii, using the best available information. To be meaningful 
for the purposes of determining critical habitat units, survey 
information had to be evaluated in light of the species' life history. 
Not all individuals produce leaves or flower every year. A below-ground 
P. yadonii tuber can do one of four things in any given year: Die, 
remain dormant, send up leaves but not flower, or leaf out and flower 
(Graff 2006, pp. 7 and 8). The length of tuber dormancy is not known, 
but may be from 1 to 4 years based upon data from other orchid species 
with a similar life history. The P. yadonii flower is diagnostic (with 
regard to other Piperia species), and the proportion of vegetative 
plants that flower in any given year has been estimated to be from 0.4 
percent to 22 percent (Graff 2006, p. 8), with the lowest estimates 
coming from those in the chaparral community. Thus it is difficult to 
precisely determine the extent and abundance of the species both within 
individual occurrences and throughout its geographic range. Because a 
positive identification requires a flowering individual, we did not 
include any occurrences in the designation that had not been identified 
during the flowering season as P. yadonii.
    Occurrence information included the results of several different 
types of surveys for the species in various locations within its range. 
Allen (1996, unpaginated) conducted a two-consecutive-year survey to 
better understand the extent of the range, distribution, and overall 
population size of the species. The Allen (1996) study estimated 
populations of Piperia yadonii within polygons overlaid on topographic 
maps, but did not indicate areas where the author looked for, but did 
not find occurrences. Graff (2006, e.g., pp. 14 and 15) developed a 
long-term monitoring program for P. yadonii, using specific test plots 
in several areas featuring known occurrences, and georeferenced 
individual patches of P. yadonii. Various other surveys were designed 
and conducted for specific purposes, including assessing potential land 
subdivisions/development projects and potential State highway 
realignment. In the case of Pebble Beach Company lands on the Monterey 
Peninsula and areas inland from the peninsula, intensive surveys have 
been conducted in multiple years to aid in formulating their Del Monte 
Forest Preservation and Development Plan.
    Next, we evaluated which occupied areas were most likely to 
contribute to the long-term persistence of the species. We focused on 
locations with larger occurrences in larger areas of contiguous native 
habitat (greater than 5 acres (2 ha), see below) that are more likely 
to support intact ecosystem processes and biotic assemblages, provide 
areas for population growth, and opportunities for colonization of 
adjacent areas. These areas also have the highest likelihood of 
persisting through the environmental extremes that characterize 
California's climate and of retaining the genetic variability to 
withstand future introduced stressors (e.g., new diseases, pathogens, 
or climate change). We believe that areas less than 5 acres in size 
that are surrounded by high-density development (e.g., office parks, 
residential neighborhoods, commercial buildings, and parking lots) and 
have become isolated as a result of development may contribute to the 
conservation of the species through educational, research, and other 
mechanisms, but overall have a lower potential for long-term 
preservation and lesser conservation value to the species. Therefore, 
we do not believe these areas have the features essential to the 
conservation of the species and thus we did not further consider these 
areas in the designation. Although we have not included these areas 
within the critical habitat designation, because they are occupied they 
may still receive protection under other provisions of the Act.
    We then selected sites from among the data set resulting from the 
above evaluation that contain the features essential to the 
conservation of Piperia yadonii, and may require special management 
considerations or

[[Page 60420]]

protection. These areas result in a designation that: (a) Represents 
the geographic range of the species; (b) captures peripheral 
populations; (c) includes the range of plant communities and soil types 
in which P. yadonii is found; (d) encompasses the elevation range over 
which the species occurs; and (e) maintains the connectivity of 
occurrences that grow on continuous ridgelines.
    Species and plant communities that are protected across their 
ranges are expected to have lower likelihoods of extinction (Soule and 
Simberloff 1986; Scott et al. 2001, pp.1297-1300); therefore, essential 
habitat should include multiple locations across the entire range of 
the species to prevent range collapse. Protecting peripheral or 
isolated populations is highly desirable because they may contain 
genetic variation not found in core populations. The genetic variation 
results from the effects of population isolation and adaptation to 
locally distinct environments (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, pp. 754-757; 
Fraser 2000, pp. 49-51; Hamrick and Godt, pp. 291-295). We also sought 
to include the range of plant communities, soil types, and elevational 
gradients in which Piperia yadonii is found to preserve the genetic 
variation that may result from adaptation to local environmental 
conditions, as documented in other plant species (e.g., see Hamrick and 
Godt pp. 299-301; Millar and Libby 1991 pp. 150, 152-155). Finally, 
habitat fragmentation can result in loss of genetic variation (Young et 
al. 1996, pp. 413-417); therefore, we sought to maintain connectivity 
between patches of plants distributed along ridgetops.
    In determining the extent of lands necessary to ensure the 
conservation and persistence of this species, we identified all areas 
that contain PCEs and are either already protected, managed, or 
otherwise unencumbered by conflicting use (e.g., undeveloped County or 
City parks, proposed preservation areas). These populations are most 
likely to persist into the future and to contribute to the species' 
survival and recovery. We added ownership categories to the designation 
in the following manner: First we included undeveloped Federal and 
State lands, then local agency and private lands with recognized 
resource conservation emphasis (e.g., lands owned by a conservation-
oriented organization, undeveloped County or City parks), and finally 
other agency and private lands.
    As a result of the above process, we did not include all occupied 
areas in the critical habitat designation. About 13 occurrences or 
parts of occurrences, beyond those in the Pebble Beach Company's 
proposed development areas, are known to the Service and are not 
included in the critical habitat designation: Two of these are in the 
Elkhorn-Prunedale area, 10 are on the Monterey Peninsula or interior of 
the Monterey Peninsula, and one is in the Point Lobos Ranch area. These 
occurrences were not included in the designation due to the above-
discussed reasons of small size, lack of surrounding native or 
appropriate habitat, or because we lacked evidence that Piperia yadonii 
are extant or accurately identified in those areas.

Mapping

    To map the units of critical habitat, we overlaid Piperia yadonii 
records on soil series data, topographic contours and, where available, 
vegetation data (e.g., maritime chaparral mapped by Van Dyke and Holl 
(2003)). Although P. yadonii occurs predominately on soils with a 
substantial sand component (e.g., Arnold and Narlon series), the mapped 
distribution of such soils extends well beyond the species' range. 
Piperia yadonii also frequently occurs in areas of relatively low 
relief (typically less than 30 percent slope) along ridgetops or in 
patches of low relief amid steeper slopes. Using digital elevation 
data, we mapped the distribution of P. yadonii relative to areas with 
low relief and found that topographic relief, when combined with soils 
and plant community data, is a more accurate predictor of the species' 
distribution. Therefore, as a first step, we tailored unit boundaries 
using geomorphologic features, vegetation data, and soil series data.
    In areas dominated by maritime chaparral, such as the Elkhorn-
Prunedale area, Piperia-yadonii occurs primarily among low-growing 
manzanitas on ridgelines underlain by sandstone. In areas with this 
geomorphic setting, we determined that digitizing the centerline of the 
ridgetops where P. yadonii occurs and adding 150 meters (492 feet) on 
either side of the centerline most consistently encompassed known P. 
yadonii occurrences, appropriate soils, and suitable habitat contiguous 
with known occurrences. The resulting 300 meter-(984 foot-) wide area 
encompasses the flat or gently sloping ridgetops with low-growing 
manzanitas and the adjacent slopes supporting maritime chaparral. These 
ridgetops support the P. yadonii occurrences, areas for population 
expansion, germination sites for wind-dispersed seeds, and appropriate 
soils. When maritime chaparral did not extend 150 meters from the 
centerline of the ridgetop, we used closer geographic (e.g., streams) 
and manmade features (e.g., roads, development boundaries, farmed land) 
to constrain and more accurately delineate a unit area boundary.
    In areas dominated by Monterey pine forest, particularly on the 
Monterey Peninsula, topographic features are less distinct, and 
consequently less useful for mapping purposes than in the chaparral-
covered hills of northern Monterey County. The Monterey Peninsula's 
Monterey pine and Gowen cypress-Bishop pine forest stands exist in an 
expanse of residential and recreational development. Additional 
residential and recreational development is proposed. As a consequence, 
on the Monterey Peninsula, we began by delineating the occurrences as 
defined by the most recent set of comprehensive surveys. We then 
encompassed the forested stands and fragments that were within existing 
or proposed conservation or open space areas. In two locations where 
forest connections still existed between forest stands, we included 
these to help maintain continued gene flow between Piperia yadonii 
occurrences. We also used landscape features such as streams, roads, 
and developed areas to delineate unit boundaries on appropriate soils.
    Using the above criteria we identified eight units that contain 
features essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii: Three units 
are in north Monterey County in the Elkhorn-Prunedale area; one is on 
the Monterey Peninsula; two units are interior from the Monterey 
Peninsula; one unit is at Point Lobos Ranch; and the most southerly 
unit is near Palo Colorado Canyon.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort 
to avoid including within the boundaries of the maps contained within 
this rule developed areas, tilled fields, row crops, golf course 
turfgrass, buildings, paved areas, and other areas that lack PCEs for 
Piperia yadonii. The scale of the maps prepared under the parameters 
for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect 
the exclusion of all such developed areas. Any such structures and the 
land under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries 
shown on the maps of this designation have been excluded by text in the 
rule and are not included in the designation as critical habitat. 
Therefore, Federal actions limited to these structures and underlying 
lands would not trigger section 7 consultation, unless they affect the 
species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical 
habitat.

[[Page 60421]]

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the occupied 
areas contain the features essential to the conservation of the species 
that may require special management considerations or protection. Many 
of the known occurrences of Piperia yadonii are threatened by one or a 
combination of the following: habitat fragmentation or loss due to 
residential, commercial, or recreational development; competition with 
nonnative plants for light, space, or water; deer and rabbit herbivory; 
vegetation cutting for fire prevention; changes in light, space, and 
soil moisture availability due to loss or alteration of adjacent 
vegetation or forest canopy; changes in fecundity (number and viability 
of offspring) or genetic variability resulting from loss and 
fragmentation of populations or potentially low pollinator abundance or 
activity; disease; and trampling (PCE 1, PCE 2). In maritime chaparral 
associations of the Prunedale-Elkhorn region where fire has not 
occurred in many decades, shrub diversity appears to be declining as 
coast live oak or large-canopied manzanitas become dominant (Van Dyke 
et al. 2001, pp. 225-227). This conversion may be slow in the shallow 
ridgetop soils where P. yadonii occurs, but increasing development 
surrounding these ridgetops reduces the opportunity to use fire as a 
management tool should it be deemed necessary to maintain the open, 
low-canopy conditions of P. yadonii's preferred habitat (PCE 1). These 
threats may require special management and are addressed under the 
critical habitat unit descriptions below.

Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating eight units as critical habitat for Piperia 
yadonii. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best 
assessment currently of areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat for Piperia yadonii. Table 1, below, identifies the approximate 
area exempt from critical habitat for P. yadonii pursuant to section 
4(a)(3) of the Act. Exemptions are discussed later in this rule under 
the section Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. Table 2, below, identifies units that we reduced in 
size between the proposed and final rules.

                   Table 1.--Approximate Area Exempt From Critical Habitat for Piperia yadonii
                                     Pursuant to Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Size of area meeting the definition of     Size of exemption area  (Acres/
         Location (Unit)             critical habitat  (Acres/Hectares)                  Hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presidio of Monterey, Monterey     121 ac (49 ha)........................  121 ac (49 ha)
 Peninsula.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Table 2.--Reductions in the Unit Size By Type of Land Between the Proposed and Final Rule
     [Only the unit that was reduced is shown. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
                                             boundaries in ac (ha).]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Local                       Total
             Critical habitat unit and subunit                 State        agency       Private      reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4: Aguajito..........................................            0            0       49 (20)       49 (20)
    Subunit 4a............................................            0            0       28 (11)       28 (11)
    Subunit 4b............................................            0            0        21 (9)        21 (9)
Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula................................            0            0      139 (57)      139 (57)
    Subunit 6a............................................            0            0       95 (38)       95 (38)
    Subunit 6b............................................            0            0         3 (1)         3 (1)
    Subunit 6c............................................            0            0       39 (16)       39 (16)
    Subunit 6d............................................            0            0            0             0
    Subunit 6e............................................            0            0         2 (1)         2 (1)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
        Total.............................................  ...........  ...........  ............      189 (75)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approximate area encompassed within each designated critical 
habitat unit is shown in table 3.

            Table 3.--Critical Habitat Units Designated for Piperia yadonii by Type of Land Ownership
              [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries in ac (ha).]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Private
                                                                 ----------------------------------
  Critical habitat unit and subunit       State     Local agency   Conservation-                        Total
                                                                    oriented NGO   Other (private)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Blohm Ranch.................  ............  ............  ...............  ...............      128 (52)
    subunit 1a......................            0             0           72 (29)               0        72 (29)
    subunit 1b......................            0             0           56 (23)               0        56 (23)
Unit 2: Manzanita Park..............  ............  ............  ...............  ...............     497 (201)
    subunit 2a......................            0             0          231 (93)               0       231 (93)
    subunit 2b......................            0             0                0           83 (34)       83 (34)
    subunit 2c......................            0       183 (74)               0                0       183 (74)
Unit 3: Vierra Canyon...............  ............  ............  ...............  ...............       50 (20)
    subunit 3a......................            0             0                0            17 (7)        17 (7)

[[Page 60422]]

 
    subunit 3b......................        12 (5)            0                0                0         12 (5)
    subunit 3c......................        21 (8)            0                0                0         21 (8)
Unit 4: Aguajito....................  ............  ............  ...............  ...............      108 (44)
    subunit 4a......................            0             0                0           49 (20)       49 (20)
    subunit 4b......................            0             0                0           59 (24)       59 (24)
Unit 5: Old Capitol.................            0             0                0            16 (6)        16 (6)
Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula..........  ............  ............  ...............  ...............     920 (372)
    subunit 6a......................            0             0         435 (176)        375 (152)     810 (328)
    subunit 6b......................            0             0                0             6 (2)         6 (2)
    subunit 6c......................            0             0            23 (9)            8 (3)       31 (13)
    subunit 6d......................            0             0            12 (5)               0         12 (5)
    subunit 6e......................            0         19 (8)          29 (12)           13 (5)       61 (25)
Unit 7: Point Lobos.................      228 (93)            0           97 (39)               0      325 (131)
Unit 8: Palo Colorado...............            0             0                0           73 (29)       73 (29)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total.......................     261 (105)      202 (81)        955 (387)        699 (283)    2117 (857)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii, below.

Unit 1: Blohm Ranch

    Unit 1 consists of 128 ac (52 ha) of private lands in northern 
Monterey County in the Elkhorn Slough watershed. It is divided into two 
ridgeline subunits, separated by intervening agricultural fields. The 
two subunits support similar plant communities and need similar types 
of special management considerations or protection; therefore, we 
discuss them as a unit, except to define land ownership or acreage. 
Unit 1 was occupied at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is 
currently occupied. It supports one of the two largest occurrences of 
Piperia yadonii plants in the Prunedale Elkhorn area (several thousand 
plants (Allen 1996 unpaginated)) and the northernmost occurrences in 
the known range of the species. This unit contains features that are 
essential for the conservation of P. yadonii, including soils from 
weathered marine sediments that are classified as an Arnold Santa Ynez 
complex on the ridgetops and as Arnold series soils on the slopes (PCE 
1). Vegetation is primarily high quality maritime chaparral, with 
ridgetops dominated by low-growing Hooker's manzanita. This unit 
provides habitat that supports germination, growth, and reproduction of 
P. yadonii. It contains ridgetop habitat openings, between and among 
patches of P. yadonii, to allow for population expansion and for shifts 
in population location, should successional vegetation or other changes 
occur that alter microhabitat conditions. Features essential to the 
conservation of P. yadonii in this unit may require special management 
considerations or protection due to: the growth and spread of invasive 
plant species (such as jubata grass); erosion from old roadbeds or past 
earth-moving activities; and herbivory (PCE 1, PCE 2). Herbivory of 
flowering stalks was 36 percent in 1999, although predators (mountain 
lion (Puma concolor)) of herbivores were recently sighted on these 
lands (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 28; Graff 2006, Appendix IV). Given that 
pollen deposition rates and seed production were low for the one site 
studied in this unit, special management may also be needed to ensure 
that the abundance of potential pollinators, such as moths or bees, are 
maintained or enhanced PCE 2).
    Subunit 1a: This subunit consists of 72 ac (29 ha) of private land 
owned by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation and The Nature Conservancy. 
Although restoration and removal of nonnative invasive plant 
populations are ongoing, a management plan specifically addressing 
Piperia yadonii on properties owned by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation 
and The Nature Conservancy has not yet been developed (Hayes 2006).
    Subunit 1b: This subunit consists of 56 ac (23 ha) of land owned by 
The Nature Conservancy and managed by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation, or 
owned and managed by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation. A management plan 
specifically addressing Piperia yadonii has not yet been developed.

Unit 2: Manzanita Park

    Unit 2 consists of 498 ac (201 ha) of Monterey County lands north 
of Prunedale. It is divided into 3 subunits that support similar soils 
and vegetation communities and need similar types of special management 
considerations or protection; therefore, we discuss these 
characteristics for the whole unit. Unit 2 was occupied at the time of 
listing (Service 1998) and is currently occupied. The lands in this 
unit support several thousand Piperia yadonii plants scattered along 
the ridges, separated by intervening lower-elevation areas of oak 
woodland, farmed lands, and residential development (Allen 1996 
unpaginated; Environmental Science Associates 2003; CNDDB 2005; Graff 
2006 appendix IV). This unit contains features that are essential for 
the conservation of P. yadonii, including soils from weathered marine 
sediments that are classified as an Arnold-Santa Ynez complex on the 
ridgetops and as Arnold series soils on the slopes and on more 
undulating topography within Manzanita County Park (PCE 1). Vegetation 
within the subunits is primarily maritime chaparral, with some coast 
live oak woodland at the lower elevations. The ridgetops are dominated 
by low-growing Hooker's manzanita. This unit contains the PCEs for P. 
yadonii that promote germination, growth, and reproduction (PCE 1). 
This unit encompasses a cluster of three ridgelines primarily oriented 
east-west that rise in elevation from west to east, which support P. 
yadonii and which may be close enough for genetic exchange via wind-
dispersed seed. In conjunction with the Blohm Ranch unit (Unit 1), this 
unit encompasses the majority of the P.

[[Page 60423]]

yadonii plants known in the northern half of the range of P. yadonii. 
The ridgetop habitat openings, between and among patches of P. yadonii, 
allow for population expansion and for shifts in population location, 
should successional vegetation or other changes occur that alter 
microhabitat conditions. This unit is the central of the three in the 
Elkhorn Prunedale geographic area. This unit supports one of the two 
largest occurrences in the species' northern range, and the subunits of 
Unit 2 include the largest occupied ridgelines relatively unfragmented 
by residential development in the heart of the species' northern 
distribution. Due to their relatively unfragmented condition, lands in 
this unit may support dormant plants among the patches of currently 
known P. yadonii. Features in this unit may require special management 
considerations or protection due to: the growth and spread of invasive 
plant species, such as jubata grass, French broom, and eucalyptus; 
elimination or further fragmentation of habitat from residential, 
recreational, or agricultural development; vegetation removal for fuel 
reduction purposes; disease; and herbivory (PCE 1, PCE 2). Habitat with 
features essential to the conservation of P. yadonii in this unit may 
require special management considerations or protection to ensure the 
abundance of potential pollinators, such as moths or bees, are 
maintained or enhanced, to ensure the production of sufficient viable 
seed (PCE 2).
    Subunit 2a: This subunit consists of 231 ac (93 ha) of land owned 
and managed by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation.
    Subunit 2b: This subunit consists of 83 ac (34 ha) of private 
lands. Some of the lands in this subunit were proposed for a 10-lot 
subdivision, residential development, and open space designation in 
2000 (Mercurio 2000, p. 2); this project may be moving forward in the 
near future (Schubert 2006).
    Subunit 2c: This subunit consists of 183 ac (74 ha) within 
Manzanita County Park, owned and managed by the County of Monterey. 
Part of the park has been developed into a sports complex and is not 
part of the designation. A portion of the park within the unit is used 
for hiking and equestrian use. Although volunteers have recently begun 
removing nonnative invasive plants from the park, we are not aware of 
the existence of any management plan that specifically addresses 
Piperia yadonii on properties owned by Monterey County.

Unit 3: Vierra Canyon

    Unit 3 consists of 50 ac (20 ha) consisting primarily of State 
lands in northern Monterey County north of Prunedale. It is divided 
into 3 subunits with similarities in vegetation and special management 
considerations or protection needs. Unit 3 was occupied at the time of 
listing (Service 1998) and is currently occupied (Childs 2004). The 
easternmost Piperia yadonii occurrences in unit 3 (subunits 3b and 3c) 
are reported to be small, with fewer than 10 flowering individuals; 
this likely represents up to several hundred individuals, based on the 
observed proportion of flowering to vegetative individuals (Doak and 
Graff 2001). This unit contains features that are essential for the 
conservation of P. yadonii, including the following: Lands in this unit 
support soils from weathered marine sediments that are classified as an 
Arnold-Santa Ynez complex on the ridgetops and the Arnold series on the 
slopes (PCE 1). Vegetation is primarily maritime chaparral, with coast 
live oak woodland in the lower elevation areas. The ridgetops are 
dominated by low-growing Hooker's manzanita. Analysis of aerial 
photographs suggests that chaparral vegetation on the ridgetops in this 
region maintains a more open canopy than in areas to the west, in the 
areas of Units 1 and 2 (Van Dyke 2006). Therefore, these areas may 
support openings that are more persistent, and can be occupied by P. 
yadonii for a longer time, than areas to the west, even in the absence 
of fire (Van Dyke 2006). The lands surrounding these subunits are more 
extensively developed for residential use than are those to the west, 
severing the once continuous maritime chaparral that dominated the 
ridges. Consequently the subunits are smaller and lack the additional 
habitat for population expansion found in the other northern units. 
This unit contains the PCEs for P. yadonii that promote germination, 
growth, and reproduction. It supports the easternmost occurrences of P. 
yadonii in the Elkhorn'Prunedale region, on the northeast periphery of 
the species' range. Features essential to the conservation of P. 
yadonii in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protection due to elimination or further fragmentation of habitat from 
development, grading or other vegetation removal (e.g., for fuel 
reduction purposes or roads), and the spread of invasive plant species 
(PCE 1, PCE 2).
    Subunit 3a: This subunit consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of private lands 
that are overlain by a Pacific Gas and Electric Company easement. The 
occurrence in this subunit is the largest documented in Unit 3, 
numbering several thousand plants (Childs 2004).
    Subunit 3b: This subunit consists of 12 ac (5 ha) of State lands 
(California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)). The lands in this 
subunit and in subunit 3c were part of a previous study area for a 
highway alignment. This alignment was eventually excluded from further 
consideration and the State retains the lands (Robison 2006). We are 
not aware of any management plan that addresses Piperia yadonii on 
these State properties.
    Subunit 3c: This subunit consists of 21 ac (8 ha) of State lands, 
owned by Caltrans.

Unit 4: Aguajito

    Unit 4 consists of 108 ac (44 ha) of private land east of the 
Monterey Peninsula and north of Jack's Peak County Park. It is divided 
into 2 subunits separated by lower elevation lands. Unit 4 was occupied 
at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is currently occupied. 
Piperia yadonii occurs in these subunits on ridgetops, where it grows 
with Hooker's manzanita (EcoSystems West 2006, p. 61). This unit 
contains features that are essential for the conservation of P. 
yadonii, including the following: Soils in this unit are classified as 
the Santa Lucia-Reliz Association, where Reliz series soils occur on 
the ridgetops and Santa Lucia series soils on surrounding slopes (PCE 
1). Reliz series soils are characterized as excessively drained shaley 
clay loams underlain by shale or sandstone (USDA 1978, p. 64). The 
vegetation in the unit is a mix of Monterey pine forest and maritime 
chaparral. Griffin (1978, p. 69) commented that this area was one of 
the only ones in the Monterey Bay area where maritime chaparral grows 
on shale. He also noted that sandstones exist within the shale beds and 
produce sandy loam soils. A related species, Piperia elegans, is more 
abundant in the surrounding Monterey pine forest (EcoSystems West 
2005b, p. 7). This unit provides habitat that supports germination, 
growth, and reproduction. Unit 4 represents one of only two units in 
the region interior to the Monterey Peninsula. It supports the largest 
undeveloped easternmost occurrence of P. yadonii in the central and 
southern half of the species' range. Its preservation will help avoid 
range collapse. Features essential to the conservation of P. yadonii in 
this unit may require special management considerations or protection 
due to fragmentation of habitat from

[[Page 60424]]

development and the colonization and spread of invasive plant species 
(PCE 1, PCE 2). We are also excluding 49 acres (20 ha) from this 
subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach Company's conservation 
agreement.
    Subunit 4a: This subunit consists of 49 ac (20 ha) of private lands 
(owned by the Pebble Beach Company). Lands in and/or adjacent to this 
subunit and subunit 4b are proposed for preservation in the Pebble 
Beach Company's recent development plan, but the configuration of the 
preservation areas is not yet determined (Monterey County 2005, pp. 2-
89, 2-90).
    Subunit 4b: This subunit consists of 56 ac (24 ha) of private lands 
(owned by the Pebble Beach Company) and proposed for preservation (see 
above), and 3 ac (1ha) of Monterey County road right-of-way.

Unit 5: Old Capitol

    Unit 5 consists of 16 ac (7 ha) of private land (owned by the 
Pebble Beach Company) east of the Monterey Peninsula. Unit 5 was 
occupied at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is currently 
occupied. Surveys in 2005 revealed that the dominant Piperia species at 
this location is P. elegans, which number in the thousands; however, 
several hundred P. yadonii co-occur with P. elegans throughout the unit 
(EcoSystems West 2005b, pp. 5-7). This unit contains features that are 
essential for the conservation of P. yadonii, including the Chamise 
shaley clay loam (PCE 1) soil type. The vegetation is Monterey pine 
forest and coast live oak woodland. This unit provides habitat that 
supports germination, growth, and reproduction of P. yadonii. It is the 
only unit designated between the Monterey Peninsula (Unit 6) and 
Aguajito (Unit 4) to the east and, therefore, provides connectivity 
between these other two units.
    Features essential to the conservation of P. yadonii may require 
special management considerations or protection in this unit due to: 
Fragmentation or loss of habitat from development, habitat degradation 
by motorized vehicles and encampments, debris dumping, and competition 
from nonnative invasive plants (PCE 1, PCE 2). The land in Unit 5 is 
proposed for preservation in the Pebble Beach Company's recent 
development plan (Monterey County 2005, pp. 2-89, 2-90).

Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula

    Unit 6 consists of 920 ac (372 ha) of private and City lands on the 
Monterey Peninsula. This unit is divided into 5 subunits due to 
intervening development. Most of the lands surrounding this unit are 
developed for residential and recreational (golf) use. The similarities 
among the subunits in soils and vegetation community are discussed 
here; subunit specific details are discussed below. Unit 6 was occupied 
at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is currently occupied. It 
supports the greatest abundance and largest aerial extent of Piperia 
yadonii in the species' range, with close to 100,000 vegetative plants 
(Zander Associates and WWD Corporation 2004, all pp.; EcoSystems West 
2004, pp. 1-9; EcoSystems West 2005a, 2005b, all pp.). This unit 
contains features that are essential for the conservation of P. yadonii 
including sands or sandy loam soils that belong to at least 5 soil 
series on the Monterey Peninsula unit (Baywood sands, Narlon loamy fine 
sands, Sheridan coarse sandy loams, Tangair fine sands, and Santa Lucia 
shaley clay loam). Vegetation in this unit is primarily Monterey pine 
forest, with maritime chaparral, and Bishop pine/Gowen cypress forest 
in two subunits (PCE 1). Pollinator observations and collections were 
made on lands in this unit (PCE 2) (Doak and Graff 2001). This unit 
provides habitat that supports germination, growth, reproduction, and 
space for shifts in the location of P. yadonii, as microhabitat 
conditions change. Features essential to the conservation of P. yadonii 
may require special management in this unit due to: Adverse effects 
from adjacent existing and future development, including the loss of 
adjacent forest canopy, increased trampling, potential hydrologic 
changes, overspray of pesticides, the introduction of pathogens or 
disease, mowing, and the introduction and spread of invasive plant 
species; continuing high and/or increasing deer populations resulting 
in high herbivory levels; and increased growth of understory vegetation 
due to exclusion of wildfire (PCE 1, PCE 2).
    Subunit 6a: This subunit consists of 810 ac (328 ha) of private 
lands owned by the Pebble Beach Company and other private owners, 
including 17 ac (7 ha) owned by the Del Monte Forest Foundation (DMFF). 
Protected lands in this subunit include the SFB Morse Botanical Reserve 
(owned by the DMFF) and the Huckleberry Hill Natural Reserve (easement 
held by the DMFF). It also includes lands identified in the Pebble 
Beach Company's most recent development proposal for preservation or 
conservation: Areas PQR, G, H, I, the Corporate Yard Preservation Area, 
and Area D (Monterey County 2005). The Department of the Army's 
Presidio of Monterey is contiguous with the northeastern edge of this 
subunit; those lands are exempted from this designation, as described 
later in this rule. We have also excluded 54 acres (22 ha) from this 
subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach Company's conservation 
agreement and 6 ac (2.4 ha) from the Stevenson School property. We have 
also removed 35 acres (including Area D) because they do not support 
the PCEs. Please see the section Relationship of Critical Habitat to 
Approved Management Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
and our responses to Comments 12 and 13, for a discussion of these 
exclusions.
    Plant communities in the Huckleberry Hill Natural Area and SFB 
Morse Botanical Preserve are Gowen cypress/Bishop pine forest, maritime 
chaparral, and Monterey pine forest. The remaining lands support 
primarily Monterey pine forest. Lands in this subunit support about 
90,000 vegetative Piperia yadonii plants (Zander Associates and WWD 
Corporation 2004 all pp.; EcoSystems West 2004, pp. 1-9; EcoSystems 
West 2005a, 2005b, all pp.). Although the DMFF conducts some monitoring 
and removal of nonnative invasive plant populations, a management plan 
specifically addressing P. yadonii on properties owned by the DMFF has 
not been developed.
    Subunit 6b: This subunit consists of 6 ac (2 ha) of private lands. 
It is identified in the Pebble Beach Company's most recent development 
proposal as the Bristol Curve Conservation Area (Monterey County 2005 
Fig. ES-2). This subunit is part of a larger area identified by the 
Pebble Beach Company as Area MNOUV, which supports about 116 ac (47 ha) 
of Monterey pine forest and one of the two largest known occurrences of 
Piperia yadonii (about 57,000 plants (Zander Associates and WWD 
Corporation 2004)). The Monterey pine forest of MNOUV outside the 
proposed Bristol Curve conservation area is proposed for development as 
a golf course (Monterey County 2005). Vegetation in this subunit is 
Monterey pine forest with an herbaceous understory. We are excluding 1 
acre (1 ha) from this subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach Company's 
conservation agreement, and as a result of boundary adjustments, we 
have not included 2 acres of proposed critical habitat within this 
subunit that do not support the PCEs. Please see the section 
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management Plans--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the

[[Page 60425]]

Act and our responses to Comments 12 and 13, for a discussion of these 
exclusions.
    Subunit 6c: This subunit consists of 31 ac (13 ha) of private 
lands, of which about 23 acres (9 ha) are owned by the DMFF. Lands 
within this unit are referred to as Indian Village (owned by the DMFF) 
and, in the Pebble Beach Company's recent development proposal, as 
Conservation Area K and Preservation Areas J and L (Monterey County 
2005 Fig. ES-2). Adjacent lands (Part of Area K) that are proposed for 
development are not included in this subunit. We are excluding 37 acres 
(15 ha) from this subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach Company's 
conservation agreement, and we have removed 2 acres (1 ha) as a result 
of boundary adjustments to account for areas that do not support the 
PCEs. Please see the section Relationship of Critical Habitat to 
Approved Management Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
and our responses to Comments 12 and 13, for a discussion of these 
exclusions. The vegetation in this subunit is primarily Monterey pine 
forest. This subunit supports several thousand Piperia yadonii plants 
(Zander Associates and WWD Corporation 2004). Along with subunits 6b 
and 6d, it encompasses lands in the westernmost region of the Monterey 
Peninsula.
    Subunit 6d: This subunit consists of 12 ac (5 ha) of private lands 
owned by the DMFF. It encompasses the Crocker Grove, an area of 
Monterey cypress forest with some adjacent Monterey pine forest (PCE 
1). This is the westernmost subunit on the peninsula, closest to the 
ocean, and lands it occurs on are mapped as marine terrace 2 (Jones and 
Stokes 1994b, p. 11). It has been documented to support about 50 
flowering Piperia yadonii plants (Van Dyke et. al. 2006), which 
typically equates to several hundred vegetative plants.
    Subunit 6e: This subunit consists of 42 ac (17 ha) of private lands 
and 19 ac (7 (ha) owned by the City of Pacific Grove. About 29 ac (12 
ha) of the private lands are owned by the DMFF. Lands within this unit 
are referred to as the Navajo tract and as Preservation Area B in the 
Pebble Beach Company's most recent development proposal (Monterey 
County 2005 Fig. ES-2). We are excluding 2 acres (1 ha) from this 
subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach Company's conservation 
agreement. Please see the section Relationship of Critical Habitat to 
Approved Management Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
for a discussion of this exclusion. The vegetation in this subunit is a 
mix of coast live oak and Monterey pine forest (PCE 1). It is the 
northernmost unit we are designating on the Peninsula. It supports 
several hundred plants of Piperia yadonii (Zander Associates and WWD 
Corporation 2004).

Unit 7: Point Lobos Ranch

    Unit 7 consists of 228 ac (92 ha) of State land south of the 
Monterey Peninsula on the Big Sur coast, and 97 ac (39 ha) owned by the 
Big Sur Land Trust that are intended to be added to the State Parks 
system in the future. Unit 7 was occupied at the time of listing 
(Service 1998) and is currently occupied. The lands in this unit 
support several thousand Piperia yadonii plants (Graff et al. 2003, 
Nedeff et al. 2003). This unit contains features that are essential for 
the conservation of P. yadonii, including the sandy loam soils in the 
Sheridan, Narlon, Junipero Sur complex series, underlain by granitic 
substrates from which terrace sands have been eroded (Griffin 1978, p. 
69, USDA 1978 map no. 35). Vegetation is a composite of Monterey pine 
forest, maritime chaparral, Gowen cypress Bishop pine forest, with some 
redwood forest. Piperia yadonii occurs in this unit in Monterey pine 
forest; on exposed granitic soils in maritime chaparral dominated by 
Hooker's manzanita; and under a canopy of Monterey pine, Gowen cypress, 
and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) (PCE 1). This unit provides habitat 
that supports germination, growth, and reproduction of P. yadonii, as 
well as population expansion and shifts in population location. This 
unit supports P. yadonii growing on soils not found in other units and 
in association with a varied mix of forest tree species. This is the 
second highest unit in elevation and supports the largest occurrence of 
P. yadonii south of the Monterey Peninsula (Graff 2006). Features 
essential to the conservation of P. yadonii may require special 
management in this unit due to: the growth and spread of invasive plant 
species, such as French broom; loss of habitat from residential 
development; and erosion (PCE 1, PCE 2). Access by park visitors may 
need to be managed to avoid creation of trails in Monterey pine forest 
populations and use of herbicides should be controlled to avoid or 
minimize effects to P. yadonii (PCE 1).

Unit 8: Palo Colorado

    Unit 8 consists of 73 ac (29 ha) of private land on the Big Sur 
coast. Unit 8 was occupied at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is 
currently occupied. The lands in this unit were reported to support 38 
flowering Piperia yadonii plants (Norman 1995), which likely represents 
a population of several hundred to several thousand vegetative 
individuals, based on the observed proportions of flowering to 
vegetative individuals (Doak and Graff 2001). This unit contains 
features that are essential for the conservation of P. yadonii 
including the following: A mix of sandy loam soils, shallow soils less 
than 20 inches deep, and rock outcrops classified as the Junipero-Sur 
complex and Rock Outcrop--Xerorthents Association (PCE 1) (USDA 1978, 
p. 38). Vegetation in this unit has been described as a unique 
association of maritime chaparral, with low-growing hybrid 
Arctostaphylos glandulosa as the dominant manzanita under which P. 
yadonii occurs (Norman 1995). This unit provides habitat that supports 
germination, growth, and reproduction of P. yadonii. This unit supports 
the most southern and highest elevation (1,000 to 1,400 feet (300 to 
430 m)) occurrence in the species' range. Features essential to the 
conservation of P. yadonii may require special management in this unit 
due to habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation from road and 
trail grading and from future development, such as the introduction and 
spread of nonnative plants, removal of native vegetation, erosion, and 
hydrologic changes (PCE 1, PCE 2).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions 
by the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have invalidated our 
definition of adversely modify (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th 
Cir 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when 
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Pursuant to the statutory provisions of the Act, 
destruction or adverse modification is determined on the basis of 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the 
current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally 
established) to serve its intended conservation role for the species.

[[Page 60426]]

    Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with 
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. This is a procedural 
requirement only. However, once a species proposed for listing becomes 
listed, or proposed critical habitat is designated as final, the full 
prohibitions of section 7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The 
primary utility of the conference procedures is to maximize the 
opportunity for a Federal agency to adequately consider species 
proposed for listing and critical habitat and avoid potential delays in 
implementing their proposed action because of the section 7(a)(2) 
compliance process, should those species be listed or the critical 
habitat designated.
    Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory 
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating 
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may 
conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are 
typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse 
effects to the species proposed for listing or proposed critical 
habitat. Formal conferences are typically used when the Federal agency 
or the Service believes the proposed action is likely to cause adverse 
effects to species proposed for listing or critical habitat, inclusive 
of those that may cause jeopardy or adverse modification.
    The results of an informal conference are typically transmitted in 
a conference report, while the results of a formal conference are 
typically transmitted in a conference opinion. Conference opinions on 
proposed critical habitat are typically prepared according to 50 CFR 
402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat were designated. We may 
adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion when the 
critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or 
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 
402.10(d)). As noted above, any conservation recommendations in a 
conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, 
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be documented 
through the Service's issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for Federal 
actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed 
species or critical habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for Federal 
actions that are likely to adversely affect listed species or critical 
habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable 
and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. 
``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as 
alternative actions identified during consultation that can be 
implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the 
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's 
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and 
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid 
jeopardy to the listed species or destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from 
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the 
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent 
alternative are similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new 
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal 
agencies may request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions 
for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may 
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or 
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect Piperia yadonii or its 
designated critical habitat require consultation under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 
requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the Corps under 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service) or involving some other 
Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the section 7 
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or 
critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 
that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require 
section 7 consultations.

Application of the Adverse Modification Standard for Actions Involving 
Effects to the Critical Habitat of Piperia yadonii

    For the reasons described in the Director's December 9, 2004, 
memorandum, the key factor related to the adverse modification 
determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal 
action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or 
retain the current ability for the primary constituent elements to be 
functionally established) to serve its intended conservation role for 
the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the 
conservation value of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii is 
appreciably reduced. Generally, the conservation role of Piperia 
yadonii critical habitat units is to support viable core area 
populations.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy 
or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and, therefore, should 
result in consultation for Piperia yadonii include, but are not limited 
to:
    (1) Actions that would remove or destroy Piperia yadonii plants or 
remove flowering stalks. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, grading, plowing, mowing, burning during the growing or 
flowering season, driving over plants, unrestricted creation of trails 
through occurrences, unrestricted mechanical weed control, and/or 
unlimited use of herbicides.
    (2) Actions that would increase the establishment and spread of 
invasive nonnative species in Piperia yadonii habitat or increase the 
invasability of the plant community within which P. yadonii occurs. 
Such activities could include, but are not limited to: Grading; 
plowing; road building and maintenance; introducing seeds or other 
propagules of invasive species during erosion-control practices and/or

[[Page 60427]]

landscaping practices; isolating habitat patches within a matrix of 
residential or other development; off road vehicle traffic; and/or 
livestock grazing. These activities could encourage the establishment 
and spread species such as French broom or jubata grass, which can 
compete with P. yadonii for light and other resources.
    (3) Actions that would directly remove or destroy the low-growing 
maritime chaparral and Monterey pine forest plant communities on which 
Piperia yadonii depends. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to: Road construction; grading; development; plowing; burning 
out-of-season or too frequently; and/or off-road vehicle traffic. These 
activities could reduce or eliminate space and the appropriate light 
and hydrologic conditions for P. yadonii germination, growth, and 
reproduction.
    (4) Actions that would indirectly reduce the presence of low-
growing manzanitas in maritime chaparral, openings in maritime 
chaparral, or forested areas with a diverse assemblage (but low cover) 
of native herbs. Such activities could include, but are not limited to: 
Those that isolate or fragment habitat through development; road 
construction that promotes such development; exclusion of fire; reduced 
opportunity for prescribed burns during the fall season; and/or 
increased potential for human-caused fire during the growing season of 
Piperia yadonii. These activities could result in less diverse, 
consistently old-age maritime chaparral stands with fewer openings or 
areas that support low-growing manzanitas and reduced abundance of 
forest patches with filtered light canopies and low cover by vines and 
shrubs.
    (5) Actions that would alter the soil hydrology in Piperia yadonii 
habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to: Grading 
or excavation that disrupts subsurface hardpan layers that influence 
soil saturation; conversion to agricultural lands; development of golf 
courses, ball fields, or other areas that require irrigation; and/or 
development that increases impermeable surfaces. These activities could 
result in soils that do not retain sufficient moisture through the 
growing season, excessive irrigation that influences P. yadonii through 
altered water availability or indirectly through changes in associated 
vegetation, and changes in drainage patterns that influence soil 
saturation during the growing season.
    (6) Actions that would increase the abundance of herbivores (such 
as deer and rabbits) of Piperia yadonii leaves and flowers or encourage 
the spread and abundance of nonnative species that consume pollen 
(e.g., nonnative earwigs). Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to: Residential or commercial development that introduces 
landscaping that favors nonnative garden invertebrates but not their 
predators (e.g., lizards); and/or fencing that excludes predators, but 
not herbivores. These actions could result in increased levels of 
herbivory of P. yadonii leaves and flowers and correspondingly reduced 
levels of reproduction.
    (7) Actions that would diminish the variety or abundance of 
pollinators needed for seed set in Piperia yadonii. Such actions could 
include, but are not limited to: Removal of the native maritime 
chaparral and forest plant communities within which P. yadonii grows, 
night-lighting adjacent to areas supporting P. yadonii, and/or 
unlimited pesticide applications. These actions could indirectly reduce 
reproduction in P. yadonii through reduced pollen transfer and could 
alter gene flow between occurrences through changes in pollinator 
composition.
    All of the units designated as critical habitat, as well as that 
portion of one which has been exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 
contain features essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. All 
units are within the geographic range of the species and all units were 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and are occupied now. In 
some cases, the level of detail regarding the precise location of 
plants within the units was not documented until after the listing. 
Because all critical habitat units are occupied, Federal agencies 
already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by P. 
yadonii, or if the species may be affected by their actions, to ensure 
that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of P. 
yadonii.

Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act

Section 4(a)(3)
    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete, by November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resource 
Management Plan (INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the 
military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural 
resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes an assessment of the 
ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for 
the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and 
priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be 
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring and 
adaptive management plan. Among other things, each INRMP must, to the 
extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 
management, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification, 
wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to 
support fish and wildlife and enforcement of applicable natural 
resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. INRMPs developed by 
military installations located within the range of the critical habitat 
designation for Piperia yadonii were analyzed for exemption under the 
authority of 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Approved INRMPs
    The Presidio of Monterey (POM) has an INRMP and Endangered Species 
Management Plan (ESMP) in place that provides a benefit for Piperia 
yadonii. The ESMP and INRMP were completed, and the Army began 
implementing each of them, in 1999 and 2001, respectively (Harding ESE 
1999; Harding ESE 2001; Cairns 2006). The conservation goal of the ESMP 
that addresses P. yadonii is to maintain the two occurrences on POM 
lands and protect them from impacts during use of the nearby obstacle/
orienteering course. The plan identifies the following actions that 
will benefit P. yadonii: Monitoring; protecting the populations from 
foot traffic by installing signs and by other means; removing nonnative 
plant species from documented and potential habitat; monitoring deer 
browsing and providing caging, if necessary; and establishing a 
propagation program, if necessary. The

[[Page 60428]]

POM has carried out the following in the past 5 years: Annual 
population monitoring since 2000, installation and maintenance of 
educational signs, creation of an educational brochure highlighting P. 
yadonii, construction and installation of outdoor bulletin boards on 
which the brochures are posted, and removal of infestations of 
nonnative French broom in over 13 acres of Monterey pine forest habitat 
(Cairns 2006).
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts 
identified in the ESMP and INRMP will provide benefits to Piperia 
yadonii occurring in habitats within the POM. Therefore, this 
installation is exempt from critical habitat designation under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act. Approximately 121 acres (49 ha) of habitat for P. 
yadonii is not included in this critical habitat designation due to 
this exemption.
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be 
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific 
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national 
security impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area 
from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the Congressional record is clear that the Secretary is 
afforded broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much 
weight to give any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in considering whether to exclude 
a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits 
of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of 
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If an 
exclusion is contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the 
area would result in the extinction of the species. In the following 
sections, we address a number of general issues that are relevant to 
the exclusions we considered.

Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat

    The information provided in this section applies to all the 
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion 
of critical habitat in that it provides the framework for the 
consultation process.

Regulatory Benefits

    The consultation provisions under section 7(a) of the Act 
constitute the regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As discussed 
above, Federal agencies must consult with the Service on actions that 
may affect critical habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat. Prior to the designation of critical 
habitat, consultation for a listed species occurs on actions that may 
affect the listed species, and Federal agencies must refrain from 
undertaking actions that jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. Thus the analysis of effects to critical habitat is a separate 
and different analysis from that of the effects to the species. 
Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses represents 
the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some species, and in 
some locations, the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because 
effects to habitat will often also result in effects to the species. 
However, the regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis 
looks on the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species 
and the adverse modification analysis looks at the effects to the 
designated habitat's contribution to conservation of the species. This 
will, in many instances, lead to different results, and different 
regulatory requirements.
    We note that, for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's 
decision in Gifford Pinchot, the Service essentially conflated the 
jeopardy standard with the standard for destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat when evaluating Federal actions that 
affect occupied critical habitat. The Court ruled that the two 
standards are distinct and that adverse modification evaluations 
require consideration of impacts on the recovery of species. Thus, 
critical habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the 
recovery of a species.
    There are two limitations to the regulatory effect of critical 
habitat. First, consultation is only required where there is a Federal 
nexus--if there is no Federal nexus, designation itself does not 
restrict actions that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
Second, it only limits destruction or adverse modification. By its 
nature, the prohibition on adverse modification is designed to ensure 
those areas that contain the physical and biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species or unoccupied areas that are 
essential to the conservation of the species are not eroded. Critical 
habitat designation alone, however, does not require specific steps 
toward recovery.
    Once consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act is triggered, 
the process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing 
that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect 
critical habitat. However, if the Service determines through informal 
consultation that adverse impacts are likely to occur, then formal 
consultation is initiated. Formal consultation concludes with a 
biological opinion issued by the Service on whether the proposed 
Federal action is likely to result in destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. For critical habitat, a biological 
opinion that reaches a ``no destruction or adverse modification'' 
determination may contain discretionary conservation recommendations to 
minimize adverse effects to primary constituent elements.
    We believe that in many instances the regulatory benefit of 
critical habitat is low when compared to voluntary conservation efforts 
or management plans. The conservation achieved through implementing 
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under Section 10 of the Act or other 
habitat management plans is typically greater than would be achieved 
through multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, section 7 
consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. Management 
plans commit resources to implement long-term management and protection 
to particular habitat for at least one and possibly other listed or 
sensitive species. Section 7 consultations only commit Federal agencies 
to prevent adverse modification to critical habitat caused by the 
particular project, and they are not committed to provide conservation 
or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the proposed project. 
Thus, an HCP or management plan that incorporates enhancement or 
recovery as the management standard will often provide as much or more 
benefit than a consultation for critical habitat designation conducted 
under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit in the Gifford 
Pinchot decision.

Educational Benefits

    A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the 
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and 
local governments, and the public regarding the potential

[[Page 60429]]

conservation value of an area. This helps focus and promote 
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of 
high conservation value for Piperia yadonii. In general, the 
educational benefit of a critical habitat designation always exists, 
although in some cases it may be redundant with other educational 
effects. For example, HCPs have significant public input and may 
largely duplicate the educational benefit of a critical habitat 
designation. This benefit is closely related to a second benefit: That 
the designation of critical habitat would inform State agencies and 
local governments about areas that could be conserved under State laws 
or local ordinances.

Recovery Benefits

    The process of designating critical habitat as described in the Act 
requires that the Service identify those lands on which are found the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species which may require special management considerations or 
protection. In identifying those lands, the Service must consider the 
recovery needs of the species, such that the habitat that is 
identified, if managed, could provide for the survival and recovery of 
the species. Furthermore, once critical habitat has been designated, 
Federal agencies must consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act to ensure that their actions will not adversely modify 
designated critical habitat or jeopardize the continued existence of 
the species. As noted in the Ninth Circuit's Gifford Pinchot decision, 
the Court ruled that the jeopardy and adverse modification standards 
are distinct, and that adverse modification evaluations require 
consideration of impacts to the recovery of species. Thus, through the 
section 7(a)(2) consultation process, critical habitat designations 
provide recovery benefits to species by ensuring that Federal actions 
will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
    It is beneficial to identify those lands that are necessary for the 
conservation of the species and that, if managed appropriately, would 
further recovery measures for the species. The process of proposing and 
finalizing a critical habitat rule provides the Service with the 
opportunity to determine lands essential for conservation as well as 
identify the primary constituent elements or features essential for 
conservation on those lands. The designation process includes peer 
review and public comment on the identified features and lands. This 
process is valuable to landowners and managers in developing 
conservation management plans for identified lands, as well as any 
other occupied habitat or suitable habitat that may not have been 
included in the Service's determination of essential habitat.
    However, the designation of critical habitat does not require that 
any management or recovery actions take place on the lands included in 
the designation. Even in cases where consultation has been initiated 
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result of consultation is to 
avoid jeopardy to the species and adverse modification of its critical 
habitat, but not specifically to manage remaining lands or institute 
recovery actions on remaining lands. Conversely, management plans 
institute proactive actions over the lands they encompass intentionally 
to remove or reduce known threats to a species or its habitat and, 
therefore, implement recovery actions. We believe that the conservation 
of a species and its habitat that could be achieved through the 
designation of critical habitat, in some cases, is less than the 
conservation that could be achieved through the implementation of a 
management plan that includes species-specific provisions and considers 
enhancement or recovery of listed species as the management standard 
over the same lands. Consequently, implementation of any HCP or 
management plan that considers enhancement or recovery as the 
management standard will often provide as much or more benefit than a 
consultation for critical habitat designation conducted under the 
standards required by the Ninth Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot 
decision.

Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands

    Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover 
without the cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent 
of the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute 
1995, p. 2), and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened 
species occur either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et 
al. 2002, p. 720). Stein et al. (1995, p. 400) found that only about 12 
percent of listed species were found almost exclusively on Federal 
lands (90 to 100 percent of their known occurrences restricted to 
Federal lands) and that 50 percent of federally listed species are not 
known to occur on Federal lands at all.
    Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land 
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United 
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of 
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners 
(Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James 
2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and promoting voluntary 
cooperation of landowners is essential to understanding the status of 
species on non-Federal lands and is necessary to implement recovery 
actions such as reintroducing listed species, habitat restoration, and 
habitat protection.
    Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction in contributing to 
endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-sector 
efforts through the Department of the Interior's Cooperative 
Conservation philosophy. Conservation agreements with non-Federal 
landowners (HCPs, safe harbor agreements, other conservation 
agreements, easements, and State and local regulations) enhance species 
conservation by extending species protections beyond those available 
through section 7 consultations. In the past decade, we have encouraged 
non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation agreements, based on 
a view that we can achieve greater species conservation on non-Federal 
land through such partnerships than we can through regulatory methods 
(61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
    Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible 
consequences of encouraging endangered species to their property, and 
there is mounting evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal 
Government, while well-intentioned and required by law, can (under 
certain circumstances) have unintended negative consequences for the 
conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5-6; 
Bean 2002, pp. 2-3; Conner and Mathews 2002, pp. 1-2; James 2002, pp. 
270-271; Koch 2002, pp. 2-3; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1639-1643). Many 
landowners fear a decline in their property value due to real or 
perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or 
endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered 
species is viewed by many landowners as a liability, resulting in anti-
conservation incentives because maintaining habitats that harbor 
endangered species represents a risk to future economic opportunities 
(Main et al. 1999, pp. 1264-1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-1648). 
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on 
private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will 
support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, p. 1263; 
Bean 2002, p. 2; Brook et al.

[[Page 60430]]

2003, pp. 1644-1648). The magnitude of this negative outcome is greatly 
amplified in situations where active management measures (such as 
reintroduction, fire management, and control of invasive species) are 
necessary for species conservation (Bean 2002, pp. 3-4). The Service 
believes that the judicious exclusion of specific areas of non-
federally owned lands from critical habitat designations can contribute 
to species recovery and provide a superior level of conservation than 
critical habitat alone.
    The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the 
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems 
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering 
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out 
by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, can sometimes be 
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus 
the benefits of excluding areas that are covered by partnerships or 
voluntary conservation efforts can often be high.

Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs or Other Management Plans From 
Critical Habitat

    The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other management plans 
from critical habitat designation include relieving landowners, 
communities, and counties of any additional regulatory burden that 
might be imposed by a critical habitat designation. Most HCPs and other 
conservation plans take many years to develop and, upon completion, are 
consistent with the recovery objectives for listed species that are 
covered within the plan area. Many conservation plans also provide 
conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species. Imposing an 
additional regulatory review as a result of the designation of critical 
habitat may undermine these conservation efforts and partnerships 
designed to proactively protect species to ensure that listing under 
the Act will not be necessary. Designation of critical habitat within 
the boundaries of management plans that provide conservation measures 
for a species could be viewed as a disincentive to those entities 
currently developing these plans or contemplating them in the future, 
because one of the incentives for undertaking conservation is greater 
ease of permitting where listed species are affected. Addition of a new 
regulatory requirement would remove a significant incentive for 
undertaking the time and expense of management planning. In fact, 
designating critical habitat in areas covered by a pending HCP or 
conservation plan could result in the loss of some species' benefits if 
participants abandon the planning process, in part because of the 
strength of the perceived additional regulatory compliance that such 
designation would entail. The time and cost of regulatory compliance 
for a critical habitat designation do not have to be quantified for 
them to be perceived as additional Federal regulatory burden sufficient 
to discourage continued participation in plans targeting listed 
species' conservation.
    A related benefit of excluding lands within management plans from 
critical habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability to 
seek new partnerships with future plan participants including States, 
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private 
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we 
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands within approved 
management plan areas are designated as critical habitat, it would 
likely have a negative effect on our ability to establish new 
partnerships to develop these plans, particularly plans that address 
landscape-level conservation of species and habitats. By preemptively 
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and 
encourage additional conservation actions in the future.

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

    After consideration under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are 
proposing to exclude the following areas of habitat from the critical 
habitat designation for Piperia yadonii: 49 acres in Unit 4 and 100 
acres in Unit 6. There are two exclusions: One for areas proposed for 
development under a conservation agreement with Pebble Beach Company, 
and the other for an area owned by the Stevenson School.
    The Pebble Beach Company has submitted a conservation agreement for 
its lands that are within P. yadonii critical habitat units on the 
Monterey Peninsula (Unit 6), and interior to the Monterey Peninsula 
(Unit 4 and Unit 5). We have considered this conservation strategy in 
our designation and have excluded from critical habitat approximately 
143 ac (58 ha) we had proposed for critical habitat that are currently 
owned and managed by the Pebble Beach Company in subunits 4a, 4b, 6a, 
6b, 6c, and 6e. We are also excluding from the designation 
approximately 6 ac (2 ha) owned by Stevenson School on the Monterey 
Peninsula. We believe that these areas are appropriate for exclusion 
under the ``other relevant factor'' provisions of section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act. A detailed analysis of our exclusion of these lands under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act is provided in the paragraphs below.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management Plans--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Pebble Beach Company Lands
    A Memorandum of Understanding between the Service and the Pebble 
Beach Company serves as the conservation agreement addressing Piperia 
yadonii on Pebble Beach Company (Company) lands. It identifies 
different management strategies and conservation benefits to P. 
yadonii, depending on whether or not the Company receives government 
approvals for their proposed development project. The conservation 
agreement essentially summarizes and commits the Company to the 
preservation, management, avoidance, minimization, and enhancement 
measures for P. yadonii in the Company's Del Monte Forest Preservation 
and Development Plan (DMF/PDP) and the additional mitigations included 
by the County of Monterey in the 2005 FEIR (Monterey County 2005), 
providing that the Company receives local, State, and Federal 
government agency approvals for the development portion of their 
proposed project. Almost all of the Company lands in the Del Monte 
Forest (Subunits 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e), and Old Capitol (Unit 5), that 
were proposed as critical habitat were required to be conserved as 
mitigation for development in that planning process. With these 
approvals, the conservation agreement would provide a benefit to P. 
yadonii that is beyond that of the FEIR-defined project, in that it 
includes the Company's commitment to preserve and manage lands 
identified in the conservation agreement in perpetuity, superseding the 
provision described in the FEIR that requires the County Supervisors to 
decide on the need for continued management after 20 years of 
implementation (Monterey County 2005 (PRDEIR), p. P2-19). By including 
this requirement, the conservation agreement recognizes that management 
activities, such as control of nonnative species and recreational 
access, should occur in perpetuity, given that the effects of 
surrounding development occur in perpetuity. The conservation agreement 
references the FEIR and its suite of actions designed to conserve P. 
yadonii and offset adverse effects of

[[Page 60431]]

proposed development on the species. They include the Company's 
commitment to:
    a. Preserve Monterey pine forest and maritime chaparral habitat 
occupied by Piperia yadonii, in the areas identified as mitigation for 
Yadon's piperia in the FEIR and the County's mitigation conditions 
(Monterey County 2005);
    b. Maintain the quality and acreage of habitat occupied by Piperia 
yadonii within the lands identified in (a), above, through resource 
management;
    c. Reduce the loss of Piperia yadonii through siting and design of 
development project components;
     d. Reduce the direct and indirect effects on extant Piperia 
yadonii adjacent to development areas, through staff education, and 
implementation of protective measures addressing golf course use, 
maintenance, and construction;
    e. Salvage and transplant Piperia yadonii as described in the FEIR 
(Monterey County 2005);
    f. Enhance and expand occupied habitat for Piperia yadonii on the 
lands identified in (a) above, by convening an Adaptive Management Team 
and developing and implementing the Piperia Plan and a program of 
management-oriented research and testing. The Piperia Plan would be 
developed by a third-party consultant, agreed to by the Service, and 
would describe a scientifically sound, coordinated approach to 
preservation, enhancement, and management of P. yadonii on the lands 
addressed in the FEIR. Following the initial County approvals, the 
Adaptive Management Team convened, and the Pebble Beach Company has 
begun funding a program of management and enhancement-oriented research 
for P. yadonii.
    In June 2007, the California Coastal Commission denied approval of 
a Monterey County measure that was needed for the Company to secure 
project approvals. The eventual outcome of this process is unknown. In 
the absence of approvals on the current project, the Company may pursue 
an alternate project. The conservation agreement describes alternate 
actions, in the event that the Company's project does not receive 
government approvals. Under the conservation agreement, if they receive 
approvals for an alternative project that lacks an 18-hole golf course, 
the Company would preserve and manage at least 511 ac (207 ha) of land 
in the Del Monte Forest, Old Capitol and Aguajito areas, as identified 
in the conservation agreement exhibits. The areas the Conservation 
Agreement identifies for dedication include all Company lands in 
designated critical habitat on the Del Monte Forest (in Subunits 6a, 
6b, 6c, and 6e) and at Old Capitol (Unit 5), as well as designated 
critical habitat at Aguajito (all of Subunit 4a and half of Subunit 
4b). The conservation agreement allows some flexibility in which 
specific parcels of Monterey pine forest habitat will be preserved. If 
the Pebble Beach Company obtains approval for a future project, the 
company will not begin developing any area supporting P. yadonii until 
they dedicate the lands to be preserved. The conservation agreement 
includes no time requirement on the dedications, other than that they 
must occur prior to development that would adversely affect P. yadonii.
    Under the conservation agreement, the Company has committed to 
manage, for the interim period until a future project approval and 
dedication occur, the lands they own that are designated as critical 
habitat and identified as future dedication areas in the agreement. 
They will also manage Areas N and O for the benefit of P. yadonii, 
until the development approvals are secured and the land dedication 
takes place. Areas N and O are part of the contiguous forested area 
known as MNOUV, are adjacent to Subunit 6b, and support abundant P. 
yadonii. The management actions the Company will carry out include 
removing nonnative species from occupied P. yadonii habitat; 
controlling runoff and erosion; installing and maintaining vehicle 
barriers to stop entrance into populations; removing debris and 
encampments from P. yadonii locations; and educating landowners, 
utility workers, and golf course personnel about practices to reduce 
impacts to P. yadonii. To improve the success of these and other 
management actions, the Company has also committed to conduct 
management-oriented research (not to exceed $25,000 annually), during 
that interim period, similar to what the Company has already begun 
through the Adaptive Management Team. The conservation agreement 
specifies that the Company will fully fund, with a written guarantee, 
the components of the conservation agreement if a future dedication of 
lands occurs.
    The benefits of including lands in critical habitat can be 
regulatory, educational, or to aid in recovery of species as generally 
discussed earlier in this rule. In the case of Piperia yadonii on the 
Monterey Peninsula, there may be some Federal regulatory benefit to the 
designation only if a Federal action triggers a consultation under 
section 7 of the Act. The Federal nexus would most likely occur due to 
either wetland impacts in the Monterey pine forest that require a Corps 
permit, or via a consultation on an HCP that was initiated for a listed 
animal species in the Del Monte forest, such as the California red-
legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). To date, there have been no 
consultations or HCPs that addressed P. yadonii and its upland habitat 
in the Del Monte forest. However, in a recent Corps consultation on the 
California red-legged frog, only wetland habitats were addressed, and 
consideration of impacts to adjacent upland habitat that support P. 
yadonii were determined to be beyond the scope of consultation. The 
likelihood of future consultations or HCPs would depend largely on the 
configuration of future proposed development that might adversely 
affect the red-legged frog and trigger these actions. However, because 
the Act does not restrict the take of plants on private lands, the 
likelihood of future HCPs covering this species is low.
    The educational benefits of critical habitat in this case are 
relatively low for most of the lands we are excluding, because previous 
publications have already identified and discussed their importance to 
the conservation of Piperia yadonii. The primary regulatory agencies 
that have permitting authority related to land use in this area are 
Monterey County and the Coastal Commission. These agencies and the 
landowner are well aware of where the P. yadonii and its Monterey pine 
forest habitat occur, due to the publication of the environmental 
impact statement for the Pebble Beach Company's DMF/PDP (Monterey 
County 2005) and California Coastal Commission staff reports on the 
proposed project. Therefore, we believe that the educational benefits 
that inclusion of these lands would provide for P. yadonii are 
relatively low.
    Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations 
may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than was 
previously believed. However, the protection provided is still a 
limitation on the adverse effects that may occur to designated critical 
habitat, as opposed to a requirement to affirmatively provide a 
conservation benefit on those lands. As outlined above, the Company has 
committed to definite conservation actions on lands covered under the 
conservation agreement. Therefore, we believe the benefits to recovery 
based on inclusion of these lands in critical habitat for Piperia 
yadonii are low.
    Therefore, we find that because of the agreement with Pebble Beach 
Company, the benefits of including the excluded Pebble Beach areas as 
critical habitat are low. The conservation stipulated in the agreement 
would likely not be

[[Page 60432]]

forthcoming if these areas were designated. Since the Act's protection 
of plants on private lands is low, the Service believes that it will 
achieve more conservation from this agreement than it would from a 
critical habitat designation on these lands.

Benefits of Exclusion

    Implementation of the conservation agreement will provide benefits 
to P. yadonii as discussed earlier. The company has committed to manage 
P. yadonii and its Monterey Forest habitat and to conduct additional 
management-oriented research in areas identified for conservation in 
the conservation agreement until future approval of a development 
project is obtained. Once a future development project is approved, the 
Company has agreed to permanently preserve 511 acres of land on which 
P. yadonii occurs and to provide management of all conserved habitat 
areas in perpetuity. Because the interim management will be well-
informed by management-oriented research, we expect it to promote the 
viability and growth of P. yadonii populations during the period prior 
to a future land dedication.

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    The Pebble Beach Company committed to the conservation measures in 
the conservation agreement in recognition that some of its lands will 
not be designated as critical habitat while others will. It is probable 
that the Company would elect not to continue with the conservation 
commitments if the 143 acres to be excluded under Section 4(b)(2) were 
included in the final designation. We believe the proactive management 
of P. yadonii and its designated habitat provided under the 
conservation agreement provides significant benefits to this species 
that would be foregone in the absence of exclusion of the 143 acres. In 
contrast to the important benefits to designated habitat realized by 
exclusion of the 143 acres, the benefits of inclusion are, as noted 
above, likely to be minor because of the lack of a federal nexus that 
would serve to trigger section 7 consultation for projects affecting 
the 143 acres, and because, even in situations where consultation might 
occur, it would be unlikely to result in proactive management of the 
species and its Monterey pine forest habitat. Even with the exclusion 
of these lands, over 1,000 ac (405 ha) of critical habitat will still 
be designated in Units 4, 5, and 6. Over 900 ac (364 ha) are in Unit 6 
on the Monterey Peninsula in the Del Monte Forest.
    Further, because we have already come to agreement about how to 
manage the development at Pebble Beach and avoid adverse impacts to the 
status of the species, the further effort involved in consultations or 
other regulatory actions with respect to this site would be 
unnecessary. Therefore, a benefit of exclusion is avoiding additional 
regulatory uncertainty and process.
    In conclusion, we have evaluated the potential regulatory and 
educational benefits that would result from inclusion of the 143 ac (58 
ha) in Subunits 4a, 4b, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e. We have weighed these 
against the more tangible conservation benefits that would occur for 
the designated lands in Units 4, 5, and 6 under the conservation 
agreement and conclude that, due to the configuration and size of the 
area considered for exclusion, the large acreage in Unit 6 that would 
still be designated as critical habitat, and the benefits that could 
accrue on those designated lands under the conservation agreement, the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion; therefore, we 
are excluding the 143 ac (58 ha) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species

    We do not believe that the exclusion of the 143 ac (58 ha) from 
Units 4 and 6 based on the conservation agreement from the final 
designation of critical habitat will result in the extinction of P. 
yadonii. Overall, this area represents less than 15 percent of the 
proposed designation in Units 4, 5, and 6, and does not support the 
greatest concentrations of plants or the highest quality habitat of the 
lands we are designating as critical habitat. In addition, because the 
143 acres we are excluding from critical habitat are occupied by P. 
yadonii, consultations under Section 7 that involve these lands will 
occur even in the absence of their designation as critical habitat. 
Application of the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act also 
provides assurances that the species will not go extinct.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Other Lands--Exclusions Under 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Stevenson School Property
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas 
from critical habitat for economic reasons if the Secretary determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion exceed the benefits of designating 
the area as critical habitat. However, this exclusion cannot occur if 
it will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
    In making the following exclusion, we have considered in general 
that all of the costs and other impacts predicted in the economic 
analysis might not be avoided by this exclusion. This is because the 
area in question is currently occupied by P. yadonii and there will be 
requirements for consultation under section 7 of the Act. In conducting 
economic analyses, we are guided by the ruling in New Mexico Cattle 
Growers Assn. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 248F.3d 1285 (10th Cir 
2001), which directed us to consider all impacts ``regardless of 
whether those impacts are attributable co-extensively to other 
causes.'' As explained in the economic analysis, due to possible 
overlapping regulatory schemes and other reasons, some elements of the 
analysis may also overstate some costs.
    Conversely, in Gifford Pinchot, the court ruled that our 
regulations are invalid because they define adverse modification as 
affecting both survival and recovery of a species. The court directed 
us to consider that determinations of adverse modification should be 
focused on impacts to recovery. Compliance with the court's direction 
may result in additional costs associated with critical habitat 
designation. In light of the New Mexico Cattle Growers decision, our 
current approach to conducting economic analyses of our critical 
habitat designations is to consider all conservation-related costs. 
This approach would include costs related to sections 4, 7, and 10 of 
the Act, and should encompass costs that we would consider and evaluate 
in light of the Gifford Pinchot ruling.

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act--Economic Exclusion of 
Stevenson School Property

    The Stevenson School is a non-profit, non-sectarian, independent, 
K-12 school that owns approximately 6 ac (2.4 ha) in unit 6a. The 
Stevenson School has plans to develop a portion of its campus (called 
the ``Forested Area'' in its Master Plan) into an athletic field. The 
Master Plan for the Campus was developed in the 1980s and submitted to 
the Monterey County Board of Supervisors in 1983. The Master Plan, 
which includes plans for new educational facilities, residence halls, 
as well as athletic facilities, has been implemented in stages since 
1983. Although the Stevenson School has not developed the Forested Area 
yet, it has stated that it intends to do so in the future, as planned 
out in the Master Plan. The Stevenson School currently

[[Page 60433]]

uses a nearby athletic field owned by the PBC called Collins Field. 
However, the PBC can revoke this agreement at any time. The Stevenson 
School plans to develop the Forested Area according to the timeline 
laid out in the Master Plan to ensure its students are guaranteed an 
additional on-campus athletic field to use. If the PBC revokes its 
agreement and the Stevenson School cannot develop the Forested Area, 
the alternatives, according to the Stevenson School, include bussing 
students to an alternative field or eliminating some sports programs.
    The final economic analysis identifies estimated potential costs to 
the Stevenson School could range from $0.006 to $9.2 million (present 
value at a three percent discount rate) over 20 years. At the low end 
of the range, the Stevenson School may require a permit from the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to comply with section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act because the Stevenson School property contains drainages on 
the border that may be considered waters of the United States. If the 
Stevenson School designs its athletic field in such a way that it would 
impact the drainages, Federal nexus resulting from the ACOE permitting 
of the activity may require a section 7 consultation with the Service 
regarding P. yadonii. The consultation would result in administrative 
costs to the Stevenson School of approximately $5,579 (present value at 
a three percent discount rate). At the upper end of the range, economic 
impacts are the result of the disutility cost of transporting student 
athletes to the alternative field during school hours plus the cost of 
purchasing more buses and fuel, and hiring more drivers. In addition, 
the Stevenson School may lose other benefits associated with the 
athletic field; however, those benefits are unknown and too 
hypothetical to quantify. If the student athletes are transported to 
the alternative field, the total cost to the Stevenson School could be 
as high as $9.2 million (present value at a three percent discount 
rate) over the next 20 years.

Benefits of Inclusion

    The benefits of including lands in critical habitat can be 
regulatory, educational, or to aid in recovery of species as generally 
discussed earlier in this rule. In the case of P. yadonii on the 
Stevenson School property, the Federal nexus would most likely occur 
due to either wetland impacts that require a Corps permit, or via a 
consultation on an HCP that was initiated for a listed animal species. 
To date, there have been no consultations or HCPs that addressed P. 
yadonii and its upland habitat. In a recent Corps consultation on the 
California red-legged frog, only wetland habitats were addressed, and 
consideration of impacts to adjacent upland habitat that support P. 
yadonii were determined to be beyond the scope of consultation. The 
likelihood of future consultations or HCPs would depend largely on the 
configuration of future proposed development that might adversely 
affect the California red-legged frog and trigger these actions. 
However, because the Act does not restrict the take of plants on 
private lands, the likelihood of future HCPs covering this species is 
low. Therefore we have determined that the regulatory benefits of 
designating critical habitat on the Stevenson School property would be 
low.
    Additionally, including the Stevenson School parcel in critical 
habitat could provide an educational benefit, signaling the importance 
of those lands to others, including the Coastal Commission and the 
County of Monterey. However, both of these entities already recognize 
and consider the importance of conserving sensitive resources, 
including P. yadonii, in their project review process and future 
buildout on the Stevenson School parcel would be subject to the 
requirements of those agencies. Therefore, we have determined that the 
educational benefits of designating critical habitat on the Stevenson 
School property would be low.
    The primary benefit of including an area within a critical habitat 
designation is the protection provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
that directs Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 
The designation of critical habitat may provide a different level of 
protection under section 7(a)(2) for P. yadonii that is separate from 
the obligation of a Federal agency to ensure that their actions are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. Under 
the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations may provide 
greater benefits to the recovery of a species than was previously 
believed, but it is not possible to quantify this benefit at present. 
However, the protection provided limits adverse effects as opposed to a 
requirement to provide a conservation benefit.

Benefits of Exclusion

    We believe that the benefits of excluding the Stevenson School 
property from the designation of critical habitat--avoiding the 
potential economic impacts predicted in the economic analysis--exceed 
the educational, regulatory, and recovery benefits which could result 
from including those lands in the designation of critical habitat.
    We have evaluated and considered the potential economic costs on 
the Stevenson School relative to the potential benefit for P. yadonii 
and its primary constituent elements that could result from the 
designation of critical habitat. We believe that the potential economic 
impact of up to approximately $9.2 million (undiscounted, over the next 
20 years) on the school significantly outweighs the potential 
conservation and protective benefits for the species and its primary 
constituent elements derived from the potential restrictions as a 
result of this designation on educational facilities constructed on 
this site.
    We believe that excluding the Stevenson School property, and thus 
relieving the school of additional costs that would result from 
compliance with the designation, will allow the School the flexibility 
to plan for the best use of their lands for the educational benefits of 
their students. We therefore find that the benefits of excluding these 
areas from the designation of critical habitat outweigh the benefits of 
including them in the designation.

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species

    We do not believe that the exclusion of the 6 ac (2.4 ha) from 
subunit 6a will result in the extinction of P. yadonii. Overall, this 
area represents less than 0.5 percent of the proposed designation in 
Unit 6, and does not support the greatest concentrations of plants or 
the highest quality habitat of the lands we are designating as critical 
habitat. In addition, because the 6 ac (2.4 ha) we are excluding from 
critical habitat are occupied by P. yadonii, if a Federal nexus is 
present, consultations under Section 7 that involve these lands may 
occur even in the absence of their designation as critical habitat. 
Application of the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act, if 
consultation occurs, also provides assurances that the species will not 
go extinct.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and 
to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions

[[Page 60434]]

outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We 
cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion 
will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
    Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the 
potential economic effects of the designation. The draft analysis was 
made available for public review on August 7, 2007 (72 FR 44069). We 
accepted comments on the draft analysis until September 6, 2007. 
Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and considered 
the public comments and information we received and prepared responses 
to those comments (see Responses to Comments section above) or 
incorporated the information or changes directly into this final rule 
or our final economic analysis.
    The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the 
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical 
habitat for Piperia yadonii. This information is intended to assist the 
Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding 
particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of 
including those areas in the designation. This economic analysis 
considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from the 
designation, including habitat protections that may be co-extensive 
with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of 
impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small 
entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by the 
Secretary to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly 
burden a particular group or economic sector.
    The final economic analysis attempts to isolate those direct and 
indirect impacts that are expected to be triggered specifically by the 
critical habitat designation. That is, the incremental conservation 
efforts and associated impacts included in this appendix would not be 
expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the 
species.
    The proposed rule may impact two landowners, the Pebble Beach 
Company (PBC), and the Stevenson School. Incremental impacts to PBC are 
estimated to range from $0 to $2.6 million, depending on the scenarios 
described in section V of this analysis. The Stevenson School may bear 
incremental administrative impacts as a result of addressing adverse 
modification in section 7 consultation. The Stevenson School may bear 
additional incremental impacts associated with the modifications that 
may be placed on the project to address adverse modification, but these 
project modifications are too hypothetical to quantify. The remaining 
impacts quantified in the report, which are discussed below, are 
expected to occur regardless of the designation of critical habitat.
    Coextensive Future Impacts: The economic analysis forecasts future 
coextensive impacts associated with conservation efforts for the 
piperia within areas of proposed critical habitat to range from $6.6 to 
$16.1 million (present value at a three percent discount rate) over the 
next 20 years ($0.43 to $1.0 million annualized). Impacts to PBC, and 
the Stevenson School comprise the majority of the total quantified 
impacts in the areas of proposed critical habitat.
     Pebble Beach Company: PBC, which manages land in units 4a, 
4b, 5, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e, has implemented management techniques 
designed to conserve the piperia and its habitat. Efforts include 
ongoing open space management and maintenance, golf course and 
residential area management and maintenance, site clean up and 
restoration, and monitoring and patrolling. As a result, total impacts 
to the Pebble Beach Company of protecting and restoring the piperia 
habitat are $5.5 million (present value at a three percent discount 
rate) over 20 years.
     Stevenson School: The Stevenson School, which owns land in 
unit 6a, plans to develop an area of proposed critical habitat into an 
athletic field in the future. Currently, the Stevenson School is in an 
agreement to use a field owned by the PBC, but an approved PBC 
development plan will eliminate the School's ability to use the PBC 
field. If the Stevenson School cannot develop the field, the School 
would have to transport student athletes to an alternative off-campus 
site. If the Stevenson School can develop the field, section 7 of the 
ESA will likely apply because of the Clean Water Act, which will 
trigger a federal nexus, and require the ACOE to consult with the 
Service, leading to administrative costs to the Stevenson School. After 
the designation of critical habitat, the outcome of the biological 
opinion from the section 7 consultation may be more costly due to 
additional measures to address the potential for adverse modification 
of critical habitat. As a result, the potential economic impacts to the 
Stevenson School could range from $0.006 to $9.2 million (present value 
at a three percent discount rate) over 20 years.
    We evaluated the potential economic impact of this designation as 
identified in the draft analysis. Based on this evaluation, we have 
excluded Stevenson School for economic reasons. We have also excluded 
Pebble Beach Company lands for conservation partnership reasons.
    A copy of the final economic analyses with supporting documents are 
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species (see 
ADDRESSES section) or for downloading from the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues, 
but will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the tight timeline 
for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. As explained above, 
we prepared an economic analysis of this action. We used this analysis 
to meet the requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the Act to determine the 
economic consequences of designating the specific areas as critical 
habitat. We also used it to help determine whether to exclude any area 
from critical habitat, as provided for under section 4(b)(2), if we 
determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless we 
determine, based on the best scientific data available, that the 
failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the 
extinction of the species.
    Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal agencies promulgating 
regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB Circular A-4, 
September 17, 2003). Under Circular A-4, once an agency determines that 
the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency must consider 
alternative regulatory approaches. Because the determination of 
critical habitat is a statutory requirement under the Act, we must 
evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when 
promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
    In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider 
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant 
impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion 
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from 
the designation of critical habitat providing that the

[[Page 60435]]

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area 
as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of 
the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or a combination of 
both, constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis for designations.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    Small entities include small organizations, such as independent 
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including 
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 
50,000 residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include 
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, 
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and 
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general 
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in 
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual 
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to 
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of 
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial 
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities 
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing 
development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting). We 
apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to 
determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not 
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic 
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of 
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers 
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. 
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of 
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider 
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In 
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also 
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are 
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by 
critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present, 
Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 
7(a)(2) of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that 
may affect Piperia yadonii. Federal agencies also must consult with us 
if their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of 
critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic 
impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate 
consultation for ongoing Federal activities.
    To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
Piperia yadonii would affect a substantial number of small entities, we 
considered the number of small entities affected within particular 
types of economic activities (e.g., residential and commercial 
development). There is only one entity that qualifies as a small entity 
under SBRFA, the Stevenson School. The economic impacts to the 
Stevenson School are presented as a range, with the upper end of the 
range calculated under the assumption that the Stevenson School cannot 
develop the athletic field and the lower end of the range calculated 
under the assumption that the Stevenson School can develop the athletic 
field and thereby impacted by the administrative costs of section 7 
consultation. The potential economic impacts to the Stevenson School 
could range from $0.006 to $9.2 million present value at a three 
percent discount rate) over 20 years.
    These impacts are attributed to the presence of the piperia in the 
Forested Area, not to the proposed rule. The incremental impacts are 
therefore only those expected to result from considering adverse 
modification in addition to jeopardy in the case that consultation 
occurs for the project ($1,335, present value at a three percent 
discount rate). Project modifications that may be placed on the project 
to address adverse modification could add additional costs to the 
Stevenson School. We have excluded the Stevenson School in the final 
rule, so these impacts will not occur as a result of this designation. 
Therefore we certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use''. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies 
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain 
actions. While this final rule to designate critical habitat for 
Piperia yadonii is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866 in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues, our 
economic analysis determined that it is not expected to significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is 
not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates

[[Page 60436]]

to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is 
provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under 
entitlement authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the 
stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or 
otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide 
funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal governments ``lack 
authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these 
entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational 
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and 
Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support 
Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation 
that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except 
(i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above on to State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because only 0.9 percent (19 ac/8 ha) of the 
total critical habitat designation for Piperia yadonii is owned by a 
small government entity, the City of Pacific Grove. Furthermore, a 
large portion of these lands are designated as parks or open space and 
are managed at least in part for conservation of natural resources. As 
such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for Piperia yadonii in a takings 
implication assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes 
that this final designation of critical habitat for P. yadonii does not 
pose significant takings implications.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with DOI policy, we requested information from, 
and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in California. A large portion of 
these lands are designated as parks or open space and are managed at 
least in part for conservation of natural resources and a small 
proportion (0.9 percent) occurs within the jurisdiction of a single 
small government entity. The designation may have some benefit to these 
governments in that the areas that contain the features essential to 
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the 
primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the 
conservation of the species are specifically identified. While making 
this definition and identification does not alter where and what 
federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local 
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with 
the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property 
descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements within the 
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat 
needs of Piperia yadonii.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or 
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency 
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, 
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the Tenth Federal Circuit, we do 
not need to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in 
connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was 
upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116 
S. Ct. 698 (1996).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that 
there are no Tribal lands occupied at the time of listing or currently 
that contain the features essential for the conservation of Piperia 
yadonii and no Tribal lands that are unoccupied that are essential for 
the conservation of P. yadonii. Therefore, critical habitat for P. 
yadonii has not been proposed for designation on Tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

    The primary author of this package is the Ventura Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the

[[Page 60437]]

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  17.12(h), revise the entry for ``Piperia yadonii'' under 
``FLOWERING PLANTS'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------   Historic  range           Family            Status          When       Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                   listed      habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         FLOWERING PLANTS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Piperia yadonii..................  Yadon's piperia.....  U.S.A (CA).........  Orchidaceae          E                      1998     17.96(a)           NA
                                                                              (Orchid)...........
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  17.96(a), amend paragraph (a) by adding in alphabetical 
order an entry for Family Orchidaceae consisting of Piperia yadonii to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *

Family Orchidaceae: Piperia yadonii (Yadon's piperia)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Monterey County, 
California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Piperia yadonii are the habitat components that provide:
    (i) A vegetation structure providing filtered sunlight on sandy 
soils:
    (A) Coastal pine forest (primarily Monterey pine) with a canopy 
coverof 20 to 70 percent, and a sparse herbaceous understory on Baywood 
sands, Narlon loamy fine sands, Sheridan coarse sandy loams, Tangair 
fine sands, Santa Lucia shaly clay loams and Chamise shaley clay loams 
underlain by a hardpan; or
    (B) Maritime chaparral ridges with dwarfed shrubs (primarily 
Hooker's manzanita) on Reliz shaly clay loams, Sheridan sandy loams, 
Narlon sandy loams, Arnold loamy sands and soils in the Junipero-Sur 
complex, Rock Outcrop-Xerorthents Association, and Arnold-Santa Ynez 
complex, often underlain by rock outcroppings.
    (ii) Presence of nocturnal, short-tongued moths in the families 
Pyralidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, and Pterophoridae.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical Habitat Map Units--Data layers defining map units were 
created on base maps using aerial imagery from the National 
Agricultural Imagery Program; aerial imagery captured June 2005. Data 
were project to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 10, North 
American Datum (NAD) 1983.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii (Map 1) 
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 60438]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC07.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 60439]]

    (6) Unit 1: Blohm Ranch, Monterey County, California.
    (i) Subunit 1a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land 
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 611901, 
4079098; 611902, 4079137; 611917, 4079156; 611974, 4079198; 612002, 
4079216; 612037, 4079247; 612049, 4079272; 612042, 4079293; 611982, 
4079311; 611952, 4079324; 611943, 4079354; 611929, 4079419; 611930, 
4079454; 611972, 4079486; 611987, 4079543; 612012, 4079583; 612011, 
4079594; 612038, 4079619; 612190, 4079608; 612190, 4079539; 612216, 
4079511; 612324, 4079491; 612343, 4079504; 612387, 4079471; 612456, 
4079471; 612514, 4079509; 612558, 4079614; 612558, 4079724; 612489, 
4079761; 612455, 4079807; 612459, 4079821; 612511, 4079847; 612550, 
4079852; 612589, 4079847; 612625, 4079832; 612654, 4079812; 612673, 
4079796; 612655, 4079782; 612630, 4079752; 612603, 4079744; 612647, 
4079619; 612734, 4079691; 612754, 4079691; 612762, 4079710; 612785, 
4079745; 612846, 4079723; 612827, 4079702; 612815, 4079690; 612804, 
4079670; 612797, 4079645; 612795, 4079611; 612746, 4079599; 612716, 
4079588; 612674, 4079586; 612655, 4079569; 612683, 4079496; 612666, 
4079450; 612629, 4079411; 612638, 4079375; 612651, 4079353; 612661, 
4079323; 612665, 4079286; 612624, 4079249; 612624, 4079222; 612635, 
4079209; 612646, 4079194; 612662, 4079183; 612713, 4079155; 612682, 
4079133; 612642, 4079112; 612585, 4079109; 612530, 4079112; 612521, 
4079147; 612509, 4079197; 612576, 4079313; 612588, 4079337; 612589, 
4079337; 612580, 4079358; 612579, 4079358; 612563, 4079371; 612537, 
4079381; 612497, 4079398; 612474, 4079403; 612398, 4079417; 612367, 
4079417; 612350, 4079399; 612346, 4079383; 612357, 4079360; 612369, 
4079340; 612383, 4079316; 612395, 4079275; 612390, 4079255; 612380, 
4079233; 612350, 4079218; 612286, 4079200; 612233, 4079178; 612196, 
4079184; 612165, 4079184; 612143, 4079168; 612128, 4079150; 612128, 
4079119; 612127, 4079094; 611959, 4078999; 611958, 4078999; 611931, 
4079027; 611911, 4079061; returning to 611901, 4079098.
    (ii) Subunit 1b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. 
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 
611998, 4078651; 611999, 4078664; 611999, 4078665; 612044, 4078765; 
612187, 4078803; 612213, 4078825; 612254, 4078844; 612284, 4078853; 
612336, 4078871; 612385, 4078907; 612423, 4078925; 612458, 4078940; 
612479, 4078947; 612520, 4078956; 612604, 4078959; 612662, 4078959; 
612704, 4078960; 612812, 4078958; 612850, 4078951; 612897, 4078953; 
612988, 4078967; 613045, 4078913; 613060, 4078936; 613099, 4078949; 
613101, 4078961; 613094, 4078978; 613084, 4079005; 613073, 4079060; 
613062, 4079129; 613051, 4079222; 613044, 4079306; 613056, 4079376; 
613064, 4079397; 613082, 4079431; 613099, 4079501; 613130, 4079602; 
613168, 4079601; 613177, 4079580; 613180, 4079551; 613198, 4079533; 
613212, 4079488; 613220, 4079438; 613212, 4079355; 613203, 4079303; 
613176, 4079297; 613165, 4079281; 613166, 4079253; 613195, 4079224; 
613195, 4079212; 613176, 4079198; 613174, 4079174; 613177, 4079155; 
613196, 4079139; 613205, 4079091; 613208, 4079041; 613195, 4078982; 
613186, 4078964; 613182, 4078941; 613177, 4078906; 613172, 4078906; 
613162, 4078914; 613153, 4078927; 613130, 4078938; 613103, 4078930; 
613086, 4078918; 613073, 4078906; 613061, 4078885; 613061, 4078882; 
612802, 4078842; 612765, 4078826; 612627, 4078767; 612606, 4078767; 
612578, 4078759; 612552, 4078744; 612445, 4078722; 612278, 4078704; 
612253, 4078701; 612170, 4078702; 612124, 4078719; 612110, 4078724; 
612055, 4078722; 612071, 4078638; returning to 611998, 4078651.
    (iii) Note: Unit 1 is depicted on Map 2 in paragraph (9)(iv) of 
this entry.
    (7) [Reserved]
    (8) Unit 2: Manzanita Park, Monterey County, California.
    (i) Subunit 2a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land 
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 615541, 
4076005; 615651, 4076047; 615859, 4076125; 616111, 4076311; 616209, 
4076287; 616278, 4076318; 616316, 4076335; 616416, 4076435; 616503, 
4076520; 616659, 4076565; 616566, 4076763; 616534, 4076874; 616515, 
4076874; 616454, 4077003; 616562, 4077020; 616677, 4077028; 616820, 
4077021; 616876, 4077008; 616925, 4076975; 617013, 4076959; 617053, 
4076962; 617137, 4077017; 617176, 4077025; 617224, 4077020; 617259, 
4077038; 617271, 4077094; 617286, 4077095; 617333, 4077097; 617481, 
4077105; 617482, 4077105; 617488, 4076972; 617540, 4076890; 617565, 
4076771; 617594, 4076701; 617703, 4076645; 617728, 4076486; 617830, 
4076204; 617787, 4076190; 617729, 4076197; 617671, 4076233; 617643, 
4076273; 617579, 4076433; 617565, 4076533; 617468, 4076615; 617445, 
4076631; 617435, 4076657; 617402, 4076656; 617361, 4076620; 617305, 
4076601; 617309, 4076551; 617377, 4076484; 617396, 4076450; 617407, 
4076402; 617403, 4076354; 617377, 4076301; 617341, 4076268; 617287, 
4076245; 617229, 4076245; 617167, 4076273; 617079, 4076356; 616934, 
4076322; 616910, 4076259; 616884, 4076229; 616851, 4076207; 616814, 
4076195; 616775, 4076192; 616737, 4076200; 616702, 4076217; 616655, 
4076267; 616599, 4076383; 616511, 4076307; 616465, 4076283; 616430, 
4076225; 616388, 4076189; 616213, 4076130; 616160, 4076127; 616111, 
4076139; 616092, 4076133; 615967, 4076012; 615897, 4075959; 615835, 
4075931; 615776, 4075922; 615706, 4075898; 615620, 4075896; 615575, 
4075879; returning to 615541, 4076005.
    (ii) Subunit 2b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. 
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 
616488, 4074150; 616505, 4074167; 616533, 4074172; 616573, 4074209; 
616573, 4074219; 616555, 4074267; 616557, 4074347; 616567, 4074401; 
616736, 4074502; 616746, 4074512; 616760, 4074521; 616779, 4074536; 
616804, 4074543; 616826, 4074543; 616853, 4074543; 616876, 4074540; 
616890, 4074537; 616915, 4074552; 616943, 4074575; 617092, 4074595; 
617327, 4074410; 617348, 4074387; 617367, 4074354; 617374, 4074335; 
617379, 4074301; 617380, 4074258; 617379, 4074219; 617379, 4074218; 
617346, 4074185; 617298, 4074145; 617219, 4074073; 617199, 4074072; 
617186, 4074083; 617159, 4074076; 617134, 4074069; 617131, 4074058; 
617114, 4074034; 616994, 4073984; 616944, 4073991; 616918, 4074001; 
616981, 4074157; 617003, 4074188; 616891, 4074250; 616860, 4074246; 
616845, 4074178; 616845, 4074160; 616853, 4074117; 616747, 4074137; 
616712, 4074146; 616701, 4074171; 616673, 4074179; 616646, 4074104; 
616652, 4074081; 616642, 4074056; 616620, 4074046; 616591, 4074041; 
616568, 4074035; 616546, 4074023; 616532, 4074006; 616531, 4074006; 
616490, 4074054; returning to 616488, 4074150.
    (iii) Subunit 2c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. 
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 
616931, 4073371; 616936, 4073410; 616951, 4073446; 616975, 4073477; 
617003, 4073500; 617077, 4073542; 617094, 4073556; 617142, 4073581; 
617382, 4073670; 617411, 4073676; 617450, 4073676; 617435, 4073712; 
617512, 4073743; 617549, 4073763; 617598, 4073810; 617636, 4073830; 
617694, 4073860; 617739, 4073865; 617774, 4073887; 617847, 4073880; 
617879,

[[Page 60440]]

4073885; 617960, 4073894; 618016, 4073916; 618064, 4073947; 618117, 
4073965; 618279, 4073927; 618244, 4074007; 618138, 4074038; 618106, 
4074053; 618104, 4074059; 618103, 4074108; 618076, 4074150; 618071, 
4074184; 618081, 4074204; 618095, 4074224; 618117, 4074247; 618176, 
4074299; 618229, 4074318; 618261, 4074316; 618307, 4074300; 618370, 
4074293; 618407, 4074278; 618448, 4074248; 618468, 4074227; 618507, 
4074173; 618519, 4074146; 618533, 4074088; 618553, 4074051; 618566, 
4074011; 618572, 4073986; 618574, 4073952; 618568, 4073913; 618533, 
4073788; 618521, 4073761; 618495, 4073722; 618496, 4073601; 618482, 
4073567; 618369, 4073570; 618365, 4073277; 618364, 4073029; 618261, 
4072958; 618212, 4072996; 618157, 4073061; 618131, 4073086; 618090, 
4073147; 618078, 4073173; 618064, 4073256; 618067, 4073314; 618081, 
4073377; 618072, 4073413; 618044, 4073404; 618015, 4073401; 617985, 
4073404; 617957, 4073413; 617931, 4073426; 617902, 4073452; 617885, 
4073476; 617873, 4073501; 617927, 4073549; 618040, 4073586; 618063, 
4073730; 618123, 4073826; 618134, 4073831; 618168, 4073834; 618228, 
4073818; 618235, 4073822; 618191, 4073875; 618082, 4073823; 618062, 
4073827; 618042, 4073815; 618025, 4073781; 617967, 4073798; 617970, 
4073818; 617934, 4073823; 617913, 4073790; 617874, 4073780; 617778, 
4073781; 617786, 4073711; 617701, 4073663; 617644, 4073637; 617551, 
4073622; 617545, 4073563; 617491, 4073517; 617470, 4073382; 617262, 
4073305; 617237, 4073287; 617138, 4073233; 617100, 4073222; 617071, 
4073221; 617032, 4073229; 616997, 4073246; 616968, 4073272; 616946, 
4073305; 616934, 4073342; returning to 616931, 4073371.
    (iv) Note: Unit 2 is depicted on Map 2 in paragraph (9)(iv) of this 
entry.
    (9) Unit 3: Vierra Canyon, Monterey County, California.
    (i) Subunit 3a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land 
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 618886, 
4071622; 618896, 4071742; 619157, 4071722; 619431, 4071664; 619441, 
4071576; 619441, 4071573; 619385, 4071569; 619171, 4071553; 619166, 
4071601; 618901, 4071615; 618892, 4071615; returning to 618886, 
4071622.
    (ii) Subunit 3b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. 
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 
620707, 4073069; 620865, 4073146; 620890, 4073140; 620917, 4073128; 
620941, 4073111; 620961, 4073089; 620977, 4073064; 620987, 4073037; 
620992, 4072992; 620897, 4072908; 620886, 4072879; 620778, 4072930; 
620784, 4072971; 620736, 4072950; 620709, 4072963; returning to 620707, 
4073069.
    (iii) Subunit Unit 3c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 
Prunedale. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 620984, 4073724; 621030, 4073752; 620987, 4073916; 620997, 
4073968; 620996, 4073974; 621079, 4074094; 621133, 4074174; 621144, 
4074209; 621084, 4074270; 621123, 4074335; 621127, 4074380; 621146, 
4074396; 621173, 4074395; 621273, 4074227; 621256, 4074215; 621246, 
4074203; 621206, 4074150; 621177, 4074089; 621151, 4074025; 621163, 
4073968; 621171, 4073965; 621179, 4073920; 621159, 4073901; 621160, 
4073898; 621124, 4073845; 621131, 4073829; 621129, 4073827; 621153, 
4073753; 621073, 4073708; 621025, 4073710; returning to 620984, 
4073724.
    (iv) Note: Map of Units 1, 2, and 3 (Map 2) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 60441]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC07.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 60442]]

    (10) Unit 4: Aguajito, Monterey County, California.
    (i) Subunit 4a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Seaside. Land 
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 602332, 
4048354; 602347, 4048427; 602354, 4048439; 602362, 4048452; 602366, 
4048456; 602401, 4048489; 602508, 4048576; 602697, 4048582; 602735, 
4048574; 602762, 4048562; 602786, 4048545; 602817, 4048507; 602832, 
4048471; 602858, 4048345; 603034, 4048312; 603069, 4048294; 603115, 
4048262; 603136, 4048241; 603158, 4048209; 603171, 4048172; 603173, 
4048133; 603166, 4048094; 603143, 4048051; 603107, 4048018; 603072, 
4048000; 603024, 4047993; 602966, 4048004; 602522, 4048105; 602451, 
4048153; 602400, 4048198; 602373, 4048240; 602351, 4048287; returning 
to 602332, 4048354.
    (ii) Subunit 4b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Seaside. Land 
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 601574, 
4047589; 601594, 4047664; 601625, 4047701; 601657, 4047723; 601695, 
4047736; 601778, 4047749; 601839, 4047778; 601926, 4047801; 601965, 
4047804; 602014, 4047795; 602048, 4047863; 602058, 4047918; 602064, 
4047991; 602022, 4048044; 602000, 4048080; 601988, 4048107; 601973, 
4048163; 601962, 4048239; 602022, 4048231; 602007, 4048253; 602060, 
4048243; 602206, 4048211; 602231, 4048211; 602246, 4048135; 602250, 
4048108; 602256, 4048082; 602264, 4048071; 602278, 4048051; 602309, 
4048008; 602318, 4047990; 602345, 4047913; 602355, 4047883; 602350, 
4047838; 602325, 4047746; 602278, 4047654; 602262, 4047623; 602199, 
4047551; 602130, 4047497; 602054, 4047470; 601996, 4047474; 601864, 
4047460; 601773, 4047445; 601743, 4047440; 601704, 4047440; 601657, 
4047454; 601611, 4047490; 601582, 4047540; returning to 601574, 
4047589.
    (iii) Note: Unit 4 is depicted on Map 3 in paragraph (12)(xv) of 
this entry.
    (11) Unit 5: Old Capitol, Monterey County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by 
the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 599314, 4048918; 
599497, 4049056; 599551, 4048997; 599551, 4048976; 599552, 4048959; 
599562, 4048939; 599593, 4048923; 599625, 4048931; 599640, 4048934; 
599655, 4048928; 599675, 4048937; 599685, 4048913; 599666, 4048844; 
599649, 4048821; 599603, 4048784; 599561, 4048761; 599516, 4048757; 
599437, 4048777; 599370, 4048808; 599329, 4048864; returning to 599314, 
4048918.
    (ii) Note: Unit 5 is depicted on Map 3 in paragraph (12)(xv) of 
this entry.
    (12) Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula, Monterey County, California.
    (i) Subunit 6a (portion between Forest Lake Road and Lopez Road): 
From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the 
following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 594289.967, 
4049237.581; 594267.618, 4049251.760; 594263, 4049271; 594241.397, 
4049281.713; 594230.805, 4049278.096; 594214.503, 4049291.804; 
594166.894, 4049364.694; 594176.917, 4049369.673; 594186.521, 
4049380.709; 594196.880, 4049403.089; 594210.082, 4049442.288; 
594216.994, 4049476.435; 594229.293, 4049570.617; 594241.651, 
4049610.586; 594287.923, 4049701.637; 594338.715, 4049801.237; 
594339.817, 4049802.777; 594348, 4049799; 594354, 4049797; 594354, 
4049795; 594355, 4049717; 594451, 4049718; 594500, 4049735; 594512, 
4049669; 594516.717, 4049635.323; 594514.946, 4049608.292; 594510.651, 
4049578.721; 594505.106, 4049541.754; 594500.823, 4049516.756; 
594500.581, 4049505.979; 594501.352, 4049498.500; 594502.886, 
4049491.140; 594505.184, 4049484.320; 594508.514, 4049476.166; 
594512.335, 4049469.471; 594516.239, 4049464.140; 594520.679, 
4049459.245; 594525.606, 4049454.841; 594531.898, 4049450.388; 
594539.672, 4049446.666; 594548.703, 4049443.138; 594554.822, 
4049441.050; 594564.127, 4049438.323; 594572.946, 4049436.064; 
594582.012, 4049431.785; 594588.766, 4049426.645; 594594.416, 
4049420.310; 594598.418, 4049413.711; 594600.523, 4049407.460; 
594603.006, 4049397.784; 594604.979, 4049387.614; 594607.304, 
4049381.221; 594609.935, 4049375.747; 594584, 4049338; 594573, 4049333; 
594557, 4049321; 594544, 4049303; 594544, 4049289; 594547, 4049272; 
594547, 4049253.000; 594538, 4049237; 594472, 4049167; 594453, 4049150; 
594446.759, 4049141.029; 594441.513, 4049144.159; 594348, 4049199; 
594355, 4049219; returning to 594289.967, 4049237.581.
    (ii) Subunit 6a (portion north of Morris Drive): From USGS 1:24,000 
scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 596121, 4050849; 596117.233, 4050841.631; 
596114.620, 4050840.555; 596109.729, 4050839.063; 596103.326, 
4050838.039; 596096.103, 4050838.069; 596088.735, 4050839.482; 
596080.383, 4050841.481; 596072.392, 4050843.713; 596064.531, 
4050846.222; 596058.663, 4050848.305; 596051.053, 4050851.282; 
596044.058, 4050854.305; 596033.962, 4050859.130; 596016.951, 
4050866.753; 596001.620, 4050872.806; 595985.651, 4050878.329; 
595968.711, 4050883.356; 595953.831, 4050887.092; 595943.540, 
4050889.313; 595936.170, 4050889.798; 595925.089, 4050890.098; 
595911.434, 4050889.762; 595897.656, 4050888.628; 595886.642, 
4050887.141; 595874.824, 4050884.959; 595863.953, 4050882.401; 
595853.066, 4050879.170; 595840.011, 4050874.858; 595824.735, 
4050869.336; 595809.054, 4050863.117; 595794.290, 4050856.734; 
595779.189, 4050850.247; 595765.663, 4050843.950; 595755.155, 
4050838.710; 595744.162, 4050832.891; 595733.283, 4050826.778; 
595724.193, 4050820.701; 595713.698, 4050813.076; 595702.950, 
4050804.528; 595693.694, 4050796.502; 595686.111, 4050789.421; 
595678.697, 4050782.009; 595670.691, 4050774.057; 595662.547, 
4050766.912; 595653.948, 4050760.193; 595643.427, 4050752.976; 
595634.919, 4050747.856; 595625.202, 4050742.712; 595616.147, 
4050738.537; 595605.957, 4050734.502; 595595.897, 4050731.216; 
595579.392, 4050726.890; 595558.919, 4050722.484; 595541.632, 
4050719.570; 595525.140, 4050717.462; 595510.317, 4050716.119; 
595497.922, 4050715.394; 595486.247, 4050715.162; 595474.894, 
4050715.805; 595465.549, 4050717.074; 595432, 4050797; 595946, 4051094; 
595954, 4051085; 595953, 4051067; 595953, 4051053; 595956, 4051034; 
595963, 4051011; 595972, 4050989; 595984, 4050968; 596000, 4050950; 
596035, 4050912; returning to 596121, 4050849.
    (iii) Subunit 6a (Huckleberry Hill portion): From USGS 1:24,000 
scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 596121, 4048995; 596114.435, 4048981.020; 
596111.136, 4048973.151; 596108.142, 4048965.208; 596105.454, 
4048957.114; 596103.071, 4048948.946; 596100.993, 4048940.704; 
596099.068, 4048932.387; 596097.601, 4048924.073; 596096.727, 
4048918.049; 596094.961, 4048908.666; 596093.180, 4048901.722; 
596090.941, 4048894.850; 596090.194, 4048892.559; 596075.586, 
4048855.180; 596044.639, 4048787.944; 596040.015, 4048778.903; 
596034.930, 4048770.237; 596030.582, 4048763.941; 596026.078, 
4048757.872; 596021.113, 4048752.103; 596017.649, 4048748.408; 
596014.185, 4048744.789; 596010.566, 4048741.320; 596004.831, 
4048736.381; 596000.751, 4048733.288; 595998.787, 4048731.742; 
595994.706, 4048728.802; 595988.352, 4048724.693; 595983.962, 
4048722.131; 595981.689, 4048720.962; 595979.416, 4048719.795; 
595975.023, 4048717.536; 595970.322, 4048715.427; 595965.619, 
4048713.546; 595963.344, 4048712.607; 595956.209, 4048710.166; 
595948.918, 4048708.104; 595943.903,

[[Page 60443]]

4048706.982; 595939.037, 4048706.013; 595934.018, 4048705.196; 
595928.997, 4048704.530; 595923.974, 4048704.018; 595918.949, 
4048703.734; 595835.009, 4048702.117; 595829.978, 4048702.289; 
595824.945, 4048702.691; 595817.470, 4048703.522; 595814.875, 
4048703.874; 595809.990, 4048704.734; 595802.505, 4048706.404; 
595800.376, 4048706.944; 595798, 4048708; 595762, 4048723; 595761, 
4048724; 595739, 4048743; 595733.894, 4048751.431; 595730.885, 
4048761.683; 595730.310, 4048772.343; 595731.877, 4048782.112; 
595734.506, 4048792.426; 595734.563, 4048800.960; 595733.119, 
4048807.573; 595728.590, 4048817.426; 595725.142, 4048826.074; 
595722.591, 4048836.331; 595721.878, 4048845.617; 595722.245, 
4048853.774; 595723.678, 4048861.865; 595726.474, 4048870.810; 
595729.744, 4048878.237; 595735.436, 4048887.137; 595741.604, 
4048894.292; 595748.688, 4048901.227; 595756.387, 4048907.712; 
595764.398, 4048913.668; 595772.266, 4048918.555; 595779.212, 
4048924.270; 595783.576, 4048929.194; 595788.071, 4048936.101; 
595790.747, 4048942.149; 595792.648, 4048949.332; 595793.481, 
4048956.655; 595792.933, 4048964.878; 595788.510, 4048978.999; 
595781.840, 4048989.592; 595773.660, 4048998.948; 595765.407, 
4049005.918; 595876, 4049140; 595883, 4049146; 595891, 4049158; 595930, 
4049207; 595924, 4049215; 595929, 4049224; 595759, 4049460; 595749, 
4049453; 595718, 4049483; 595671, 4049449; 595594, 4049477; 595482, 
4049468; 595462, 4049369; 595546, 4049277; 595476, 4049214; 595407, 
4049320; 595398, 4049332; 595379, 4049348; 595360, 4049358; 595245, 
4049402; 595234, 4049415; 595234, 4049456; 595169, 4049482; 595110, 
4049477; 595063, 4049474; 595058, 4049541; 595079, 4049565; 595102, 
4049571; 595119, 4049575; 595140, 4049584; 595150, 4049615; 595159, 
4049642; 595130, 4049674; 595090, 4049729; 595067, 4049769; 595039, 
4049811; 595027, 4049835; 595027, 4049851; 595037, 4049882; 595060, 
4049943; 595074, 4050018; 595084, 4050058; 595081, 4050093; 595057.323, 
4050156.455; 594990.554, 4050158.347; 594967.842, 4050159.586; 
594941.815, 4050161.163; 594939.740, 4050161.513; 594954, 4050173; 
594969, 4050191; 594986, 4050216; 594995, 4050239; 595012, 4050254; 
595029, 4050260; 595045, 4050258; 595063, 4050252; 595089, 4050249; 
595114, 4050261; 595129, 4050283; 595135, 4050315; 595127, 4050348; 
595118, 4050375; 595115, 4050400; 595117, 4050427; 595121, 4050447; 
595131, 4050460; 595146, 4050469; 595168, 4050477; 595183, 4050486; 
595190, 4050498; 595195, 4050513; 595192, 4050538; 595193, 4050538; 
595299, 4050514; 595411, 4050490; 595535, 4050334; 595574, 4050254; 
595621, 4050215; 595661, 4050192; 595699, 4050182; 595718, 4050203; 
595735, 4050221; 595728, 4050282; 595737, 4050294; 595873, 4050317; 
595931, 4050395; 595865, 4050456; 595764, 4050427; 595708, 4050454; 
595647, 4050505; 595634, 4050565; 595491, 4050688; 595495.370, 
4050690.280; 595496.493, 4050690.314; 595508.038, 4050690.905; 
595520.374, 4050691.863; 595533.349, 4050693.238; 595546.186, 
4050694.972; 595557.882, 4050696.879; 595569.523, 4050699.092; 
595580.577, 4050701.486; 595593.215, 4050704.582; 595607.463, 
4050708.587; 595620.527, 4050713.299; 595632.385, 4050718.427; 
595645.083, 4050724.897; 595657.059, 4050732.019; 595668.185, 
4050739.632; 595678.590, 4050747.738; 595687.611, 4050755.653; 
595697.731, 4050765.724; 595707.498, 4050775.246; 595717.389, 
4050784.009; 595727.809, 4050792.397; 595739.767, 4050801.074; 
595750.271, 4050807.692; 595761.985, 4050814.082; 595774.723, 
4050820.556; 595787.346, 4050826.503; 595803.552, 4050833.485; 
595819.808, 4050840.511; 595835.796, 4050846.786; 595850.746, 
4050852.106; 595863.800, 4050856.332; 595878.326, 4050860.141; 
595893.138, 4050862.843; 595909.227, 4050864.579; 595923.931, 
4050865.100; 595940.058, 4050864.509; 595955.311, 4050861.023; 
595973.024, 4050856.090; 595989.675, 4050850.553; 596006.554, 
4050844.003; 596020.972, 4050837.619; 596035.257, 4050830.854; 
596050.951, 4050824.504; 596064.953, 4050819.844; 596081.870, 
4050815.399; 596091.460, 4050813.429; 596095.984, 4050813.012; 
596102.710, 4050812.958; 596111.615, 4050813.930; 596118.244, 
4050815.455; 596127.446, 4050818.812; 596132.377, 4050821.278; 
596136.011, 4050823.439; 596140.866, 4050832.937; 596142.583, 
4050836.764; 596411, 4050626; 596492, 4050567; 596500, 4050556; 596506, 
4050545; 596510, 4050531; 596514, 4050505; 596513, 4050484; 596493, 
4050421; 596437, 4050262; 596404, 4050199; 596364, 4050134; 596358, 
4050092; 596367, 4050043; 596370, 4050008; 596348, 4049956; 596334, 
4049923; 596339, 4049885; 596365, 4049836; 596420, 4049812; 596418, 
4049789; 596387, 4049778; 596366, 4049762; 596351, 4049725; 596344, 
4049706; 596332, 4049696; 596302, 4049685; 596300, 4049646; 596303, 
4049619; 596311, 4049598; 596310, 4049570; 596299, 4049556; 596283, 
4049542; 596269, 4049528; 596260, 4049516; 596258, 4049492; 596272, 
4049460; 596282, 4049429; 596299, 4049389; 596298, 4049372; 596274, 
4049352; 596258, 4049329; 596166, 4049101; returning to 596121, 
4048995.
    (iv) Subunit 6a (Pescadero Canyon portion): From USGS 1:24,000 
scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 596202.421, 4048820.398; 596202.251, 
4048823.977; 596201.106, 4048831.050; 596198.745, 4048837.881; 
596195.323, 4048844.166; 596189.449, 4048851.720; 596181.453, 
4048858.259; 596174.403, 4048861.914; 596168.285, 4048863.980; 
596159.736, 4048865.409; 596150.776, 4048866.138; 596139.514, 
4048869.809; 596131.375, 4048875.207; 596125.615, 4048881.289; 
596120.666, 4048889.708; 596116.970, 4048898.758; 596115.407, 
4048904.538; 596115.082, 4048907.507; 596114.880, 4048914.971; 
596115.601, 4048920.919; 596117.073, 4048928.699; 596119.738, 
4048940.221; 596121.820, 4048947.778; 596123.208, 4048952.171; 596149, 
4048917; 596171, 4048889; 596214, 4048863; 596295, 4048862; 596318, 
4048787; 596334, 4048726; 596363, 4048682; 596382, 4048673; 596405, 
4048693; 596418, 4048724; 596441, 4048708; 596482, 4048660; 596510, 
4048642; 596536, 4048625; 596561, 4048606; 596597, 4048578; 596651, 
4048555; 596671, 4048551; 596715, 4048542; 596829, 4048531; 596878, 
4048531; 596924.858, 4048521.004; 596936.135, 4048509.789; 596944.053, 
4048516.909; 596953, 4048515; 597028, 4048494; 597074, 4048468; 597083, 
4048454; 597096, 4048441; 597102, 4048435; 597103.186, 4048434.138; 
597103.230, 4048432.889; 597122.598, 4048407.776; 597125.173, 
4048401.474; 597125.117, 4048396.220; 597123.538, 4048391.757; 
597121.041, 4048388.365; 597119.042, 4048386.644; 597115.317, 
4048384.679; 597106.016, 4048382.581; 597099.373, 4048380.712; 
597089.681, 4048377.084; 597078.307, 4048371.300; 597062.710, 
4048362.620; 597050.160, 4048348.145; 597042.036, 4048336.655; 
597037.007, 4048327.373; 597034.190, 4048320.921; 597026.181, 
4048298.414; 597026, 4048298; 597008, 4048250; 596999, 4048220; 596952, 
4048162; 596941, 4048146; 596932, 4048120; 596924, 4048090; 596907, 
4048062; 596894, 4048049; 596833, 4048022; 596756, 4048000; 596740, 
4047994; 596728, 4047994; 596689, 4047954; 596685, 4047941; 596674, 
4047920; 596662, 4047900; 596648, 4047881; 596634, 4047862; 596542, 
4047755; 596522, 4047739; 596506, 4047734; 596458, 4047725; 596449, 
4047723; 596433, 4047716; 596297, 4047645; 596283, 4047635; 596220, 
4047585; 596204, 4047568; 596197, 4047557; 596190, 4047539; 596163, 
4047442; 596143, 4047425; 596133, 4047420;

[[Page 60444]]

596115, 4047406; 596103, 4047389; 596086, 4047360; 596074, 4047347; 
596049, 4047337; 596017, 4047368; 595973, 4047400; 595910, 4047426; 
595872, 4047443; 595867, 4047523; 595864, 4047594; 595870, 4047667; 
595880, 4047728; 595887.445, 4047772.169; 595896.900, 4047807.905; 
595923.997, 4047835.258; 595982.485, 4047890.602; 596001.110, 
4047917.832; 596009.167, 4047943.965; 596008.899, 4047989.340; 
596008.385, 4048016.218; 595998.060, 4048035.162; 595980.074, 
4048045.653; 595962.288, 4048046.253; 595934.059, 4048032.734; 
595906.862, 4048017.073; 595878.916, 4047992.590; 595843.991, 
4047964.452; 595820.544, 4047955.446; 595781.236, 4047949.719; 
595706.444, 4047946.467; 595701, 4047953; 595605, 4048051; 595588, 
4048057; 595526, 4048090; 595504, 4048118; 595501, 4048132; 595502, 
4048132; 595524, 4048140; 595565, 4048157; 595630, 4048169; 595634, 
4048198; 595676, 4048233; 595673, 4048267; 595698, 4048322; 595840, 
4048309; 595893, 4048311; 595982, 4048326; 595982, 4048327; 595973, 
4048417; 595974, 4048417; 596135, 4048438; 596251, 4048453; 596208, 
4048594; 596220, 4048604; 596231, 4048624; 596230, 4048641; 596215, 
4048727; 596218, 4048782; 596209, 4048811; returning to 596202.421, 
4048820.
    (v) Subunit 6a (portion between Sunridge Road and Spruance Road): 
From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the 
following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 595662.607, 
4048782.410; 595606.350, 4048793.214; 595593.683, 4048794.978; 
595581.024, 4048795.981; 595576.755, 4048796.238; 595555.424, 
4048796.153; 595501.980, 4048792.589; 595494.224, 4048791.208; 
595486.477, 4048789.065; 595479.043, 4048786.088; 595472.075, 
4048782.353; 595464.363, 4048777.086; 595456.518, 4048769.991; 
595445.525, 4048758.212; 595435.299, 4048745.984; 595425.842, 
4048733.156; 595417, 4048719.878; 595406.232, 4048701.550; 595399.076, 
4048687.299; 595394.765, 4048677.576; 595363.443, 4048602.869; 
595358.414, 4048589.176; 595349.695, 4048563.960; 595302.138, 
4048562.504; 595301.073, 4048566.064; 595297.396, 4048581.566; 
595294.480, 4048597.228; 595292.475, 4048613.053; 595291.233, 
4048628.962; 595290.750, 4048644.956; 595291.183, 4048660.884; 
595291.979, 4048671.483; 595293.081, 4048682.085; 595294.641, 
4048692.616; 595296.926, 4048706.356; 595298.350, 4048715.285; 
595299.470, 4048724.287; 595300.132, 4048733.285; 595300.642, 
4048742.281; 595300.693, 4048751.348; 595300.573, 4048762.165; 
595301.386, 4048771.317; 595305.088, 4048780.957; 595309.740, 
4048787.409; 595316.836, 4048793.277; 595326.841, 4048797.960; 
595339.744, 4048802.370; 595357.214, 4048807.211; 595374.849, 
4048810.835; 595397.370, 4048813.599; 595411.528, 4048814.747; 
595424.137, 4048818.163; 595434.605, 4048823.670; 595484.115, 
4048850.827; 595495.005, 4048858.109; 595502.701, 4048864.899; 
595506.769, 4048869.134; 595512.925, 4048877.278; 595517.565, 
4048884.797; 595521.729, 4048894.062; 595538.984, 4048938.367; 
595541.571, 4048946.013; 595543.020, 4048952.734; 595543.674, 
4048962.493; 595542.650, 4048972.310; 595539.803, 4048981.725; 
595534.506, 4048992.180; 595527.091, 4049001.317; 595516.619, 
4049011.257; 595500.614, 4049025.555; 595483.704, 4049038.929; 
595460.208, 4049055.429; 595441.798, 4049066.653; 595430.144, 
4049073.305; 595423.232, 4049078.257; 595412.777, 4049088.386; 
595406.135, 4049094.828; 595402.263, 4049100.499; 595400.808, 
4049107.949; 595402.256, 4049114.822; 595406, 4049121; 595417, 4049126; 
595438, 4049124; 595459, 4049129; 595480, 4049130; 595500, 4049127; 
595517, 4049127; 595527, 4049130; 595546, 4049127; 595578, 4049111; 
595609, 4049086; 595612, 4049077; 595622, 4049064; 595638, 4049045; 
595658, 4049031; 595679, 4049021; 595703, 4049013; 595731, 4049004; 
595754, 4048992; 595761.777, 4048985.026; 595769.192, 4048975.966; 
595773.393, 4048968.089; 595775.156, 4048960.261; 595774.489, 
4048951.721; 595771.678, 4048944.147; 595767.928, 4048938.772; 
595761.284, 4048933.289; 595755.383, 4048929.567; 595748.428, 
4048924.690; 595741.782, 4048919.436; 595733.484, 4048911.953; 
595727.456, 4048905.944; 595720.990, 4048898.177; 595715.891, 
4048890.806; 595711.118, 4048881.535; 595706.533, 4048868.989; 
595704.225, 4048857.307; 595703.595, 4048845.414; 595704.641, 
4048833.541; 595707.208, 4048821.913; 595710.348, 4048813.567; 
595713.185, 4048805.066; 595713.125, 4048796.760; 595710.460, 
4048789.721; 595706.253, 4048784.418; 595698.078, 4048779.603; 
595689.711, 4048778.368; 595677.796, 4048779.563; returning to 
595662.607, 4048782.
    (vi) Subunit 6a (portion west of Spruance Road): From USGS 1:24,000 
scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 595323, 4049123; 595368.117, 4049101.720; 
595382.240, 4049092.277; 595410.579, 4049065.011; 595418.415, 
4049059.232; 595432.679, 4049050.857; 595444.489, 4049043.827; 
595456.001, 4049036.335; 595467.211, 4049028.460; 595483.502, 
4049015.918; 595493.961, 4049007.120; 595504.272, 4048997.940; 
595515.056, 4048987.393; 595520.624, 4048979.912; 595524.072, 
4048971.342; 595525.218, 4048964.116; 595524.719, 4048954.207; 
595521.124, 4048943.526; 595504.298, 4048899.506; 595499.078, 
4048889.315; 595491.417, 4048879.402; 595484.782, 4048873.157; 
595475.253, 4048866.804; 595424.286, 4048839.148; 595418.003, 
4048835.465; 595406.606, 4048832.596; 595395.796, 4048831.866; 
595381.337, 4048830.335; 595367.040, 4048828.043; 595348.039, 
4048823.794; 595338.773, 4048821.253; 595324.957, 4048816.757; 
595314.336, 4048812.602; 595302.378, 4048805.459; 595294.389, 
4048797.600; 595286.759, 4048784.944; 595283.230, 4048773.401; 
595282.287, 4048762.267; 595282.561, 4048751.299; 595282.244, 
4048738.649; 595281.317, 4048726.144; 595279.779, 4048713.631; 
595276.920, 4048696.686; 595275.215, 4048685.544; 595273.573, 
4048668.688; 595272.604, 4048646.202; 595272.943, 4048629.292; 
595274.197, 4048612.469; 595275.541, 4048601.208; 595277.188, 
4048590.103; 595279.292, 4048579.003; 595281.851, 4048568.060; 
595283.456, 4048561.932; 595253, 4048561; 595225, 4048650; 595206, 
4048683; 595203, 4048704; 595204, 4048727; 595225, 4048781; 595225, 
4048914; 595222, 4048941; 595134, 4049009; 595111, 4049027; 595081, 
4049069; 595056, 4049144; 595117, 4049145; 595138, 4049144; 595159, 
4049140; 595178, 4049134; 595194, 4049129; 595211, 4049127; 595228, 
4049128; 595275, 4049132; 595292, 4049131; 595309, 4049128; returning 
to 595323, 4049123.
    (vii) Note: Unit 6a is depicted on Map 3 in paragraph (12)(xiv), 
and in detail on Map 4 in paragraph (12)(xv) of this entry.
    (viii) Subunit 6b (east portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale 
quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 
coordinates (E, N): 593541.388, 4048770.432; 593510.848, 4048805.177; 
593532.068, 4048818.876; 593548.960, 4048826.486; 593570.875, 
4048833.182; 593586.397, 4048837.747; 593608.312, 4048838.660; 
593624.139, 4048838.965; 593639.357, 4048836.834; 593659.141, 
4048830.747; 593680.751, 4048822.529; 593727.015, 4048798.788; 
593782.106, 4048772.004; 593790.904, 4048768.133; 593778.000, 
4048727.000; 593772.946, 4048696.679; 593772.083, 4048696.721; 
593715.333, 4048703.457; 593701.565, 4048705.802; 593683.913, 
4048711.031; 593675.394, 4048714.531; 593667.133, 4048718.602; 
593659.167, 4048723.224; 593651.533, 4048728.376; 593634.547, 
4048741.500; 593627.799, 4048746.427; 593624.257, 4048748.773; 
593616.962, 4048753.136; 593609.188, 4048757.152; 593605.208, 
4048758.975; 593597.085,

[[Page 60445]]

4048762.239; 593592.951, 4048763.677; 593588.773, 4048764.984; 
593584.556, 4048766.159; 593580.298, 4048767.201; 593575.860, 
4048768.137; 593571.387, 4048768.928; 593566.891, 4048769.572; 
593562.377, 4048770.069; 593557.849, 4048770.418; 593548.770, 
4048770.669; 593544.229, 4048770.572; returning to 593541.388, 
4048770.432.
    (ix) Subunit 6b (west portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 
Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 593522.950, 4048768.330; 593488.310, 4048763.587; 593468.619, 
4048760.890; 593462.417, 4048760.143; 593456.341, 4048759.609; 
593450.817, 4048759.302; 593488.543, 4048788.440; 593498.544, 
4048796.096; returning to 593522.950, 4048768.330.
    (x) Subunit 6c (east portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 
Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 593678.031, 4049656.997; 593676.816, 4049655.549; 593657.430, 
4049624.243; 593645.847, 4049580.582; 593642.129, 4049535.973; 
593642.297, 4049535.749; 593636.462, 4049526.819; 593633.154, 
4049523.033; 593630.739, 4049520.709; 593628.167, 4049518.558; 
593625.453, 4049516.590; 593622.609, 4049514.816; 593618.129, 
4049512.535; 593613.436, 4049510.732; 593610.214, 4049509.805; 
593606.936, 4049509.104; 593501.928, 4049490.433; 593498.284, 
4049510.927; 593545.854, 4049574.412; 593548.648, 4049578.141; 
593566.979, 4049609.782; 593647.949, 4049681.627; returning to 
593678.031, 4049656.997.
    (xi) Subunit 6c (west portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 
Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 593686.191, 4049823.525; 593718.176, 4049820.816; 593726.510, 
4049844.038; 593779, 4049814.000; 593781.227, 4049812.692; 593779.785, 
4049811.940; 593744.860, 4049740.544; 593707.564, 4049692.197; 
593617.531, 4049767.523; 593559.935, 4049774.021; 593531, 4049764.000; 
593486, 4049731.000; 593474, 4049707.000; 593460, 4049690.000; 593428, 
4049662.000; 593408, 4049649.000; 593383, 4049632.000; 593351.999, 
4049611.999; 593334.206, 4049625.645; 593326.515, 4049621.339; 
593318.546, 4049617.573; 593306.155, 4049612.974; 593297.659, 
4049610.629; 593284.662, 4049608.222; 593271.487, 4049607.167; 
593258.273, 4049607.477; 593245.162, 4049609.148; 593232.293, 
4049612.162; 593219.803, 4049616.488; 592978.342, 4049724.383; 
592966.840, 4049728.949; 592959.041, 4049731.592; 592954.985, 
4049732.755; 592941.323, 4049735.664; 592939, 4049733.000; 592930, 
4049733.000; 592918, 4049760.000; 592920, 4049789.000; 592936.305, 
4049827.951; 593018.581, 4049826.666; 593098.417, 4049780.812; 
593207.036, 4049823.766; 593283.323, 4049815.508; 593358.944, 
4049812.254; 593444.705, 4049788.911; 593458.448, 4049795.812; 
593602.831, 4049855.126; 593635.133, 4049863.106; 593661.279, 
4049846.810; returning to 593686.191, 4049823.525.
    (xii) Subunit 6d: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. 
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 
591851, 4048564; 591855, 4048576; 591861, 4048580; 591868, 4048583; 
591873, 4048588; 591879, 4048594; 591884, 4048602; 591887, 4048610; 
591889, 4048617; 591889, 4048625; 591891, 4048632; 591918, 4048685; 
591925, 4048690; 591925, 4048690; 591935, 4048688; 591945, 4048672; 
591953, 4048660; 591961, 4048648; 591969, 4048636; 592120, 4048437; 
592141, 4048411; 592144, 4048397; 592144, 4048351; 592144, 4048317; 
592136, 4048297; 592116, 4048287; 592116, 4048287; 592116, 4048287; 
592096, 4048293; 592073, 4048322; 592062, 4048334; 592050, 4048344; 
592038, 4048354; 591992, 4048388; 591951, 4048418; 591951, 4048418; 
591933, 4048448; 591931, 4048452; 591928, 4048456; 591924, 4048461; 
591920, 4048466; 591920, 4048466; 591912, 4048476; 591908, 4048485; 
591907, 4048489; 591905, 4048496; 591902, 4048503; 591899, 4048510; 
591895, 4048517; 591891, 4048523; 591886, 4048529; 591882, 4048534; 
591877, 4048538; 591872, 4048543; 591866, 4048548; 591860, 4048552; 
591855, 4048556; returning to 591851, 4048564.
    (xiii) Subunit 6e: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. 
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 
595552, 4051784; 595527, 4051833; 595413, 4051790; 595404, 4051837; 
595404, 4051843; 595404, 4051846; 595403, 4051858; 595401, 4051873; 
595399, 4051888; 595397, 4051903; 595395, 4051917; 595392, 4051932; 
595389, 4051947; 595386, 4051961; 595382, 4051976; 595379, 4051990; 
595375, 4052005; 595371, 4052019; 595370, 4052021; 595370, 4052022; 
595366, 4052033; 595362, 4052047; 595357, 4052061; 595352, 4052075; 
595346, 4052089; 595341, 4052103; 595334, 4052116; 595332, 4052121; 
595330, 4052124; 595325, 4052130; 595324, 4052130; 595323, 4052138; 
595292, 4052402; 595329, 4052407; 595339, 4052409; 595340, 4052409; 
595342, 4052409; 595344, 4052409; 595345, 4052409; 595347, 4052409; 
595348, 4052409; 595349, 4052409; 595351, 4052409; 595352, 4052409; 
595354, 4052409; 595356, 4052409; 595358, 4052409; 595359, 4052409; 
595361, 4052409; 595363, 4052409; 595365, 4052409; 595366, 4052409; 
595367, 4052410; 595368, 4052410; 595370, 4052410; 595372, 4052410; 
595373, 4052411; 595375, 4052411; 595377, 4052412; 595379, 4052412; 
595380, 4052412; 595382, 4052413; 595384, 4052413; 595385, 4052414; 
595387, 4052415; 595388, 4052415; 595390, 4052416; 595392, 4052416; 
595393, 4052417; 595395, 4052418; 595397, 4052419; 595398, 4052419; 
595400, 4052420; 595401, 4052421; 595403, 4052422; 595404, 4052423; 
595406, 4052424; 595407, 4052425; 595409, 4052426; 595410, 4052427; 
595412, 4052428; 595413, 4052429; 595414, 4052429; 595425, 4052438; 
595487, 4052473; 595545, 4052519; 595569, 4052552; 595574, 4052559; 
595785, 4052448; 595838, 4052420; 595829, 4052400; 595798, 4052339; 
595762, 4052253; 595751, 4052224; 595736, 4052189; 595703, 4052125; 
595688, 4052091; 595683, 4052085; 595672, 4052071; 595634, 4052047; 
595633, 4052045; 595632, 4052043; 595631, 4052041; 595630, 4052039; 
595628, 4052037; 595627, 4052035; 595626, 4052033; 595625, 4052030; 
595624, 4052028; 595623, 4052026; 595622, 4052024; 595621, 4052021; 
595621, 4052019; 595620, 4052017; 595619, 4052015; 595618, 4052012; 
595618, 4052010; 595617, 4052008; 595616, 4052005; 595616, 4052003; 
595615, 4052001; 595615, 4051998; 595614, 4051996; 595614, 4051993; 
595614, 4051991; 595613, 4051989; 595613, 4051986; 595613, 4051984; 
595613, 4051981; 595612, 4051979; 595612, 4051977; 595612, 4051974; 
595612, 4051972; 595612, 4051969; 595612, 4051967; 595613, 4051964; 
595613, 4051962; 595613, 4051960; 595613, 4051957; 595613, 4051955; 
595614, 4051952; 595614, 4051950; 595614, 4051948; 595615, 4051945; 
595615, 4051943; 595616, 4051940; 595617, 4051938; 595617, 4051936; 
595618, 4051933; 595618, 4051931; 595619, 4051929; 595620, 4051926; 
595621, 4051924; 595625, 4051914; 595629, 4051904; 595634, 4051892; 
595638, 4051882; 595643, 4051871; 595655, 4051846; 595657, 4051842; 
595663, 4051824; returning to 595552, 4051784.
    (xiv) Note: Map of Unit 6 (Map 3) follows:
    (xv) Note: Detail map of Subunit 6a (Map 4) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 60446]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC07.002


[[Page 60447]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC07.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 60448]]

    (13) Unit 7: Point Lobos Ranch, Monterey County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Monterey and Soberanes 
Point. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, 
N): 595261, 4040950; 595269, 4041010; 595302, 4041071; 595344, 4041106; 
595399, 4041136; 595410, 4041165; 595402, 4041291; 595387, 4041367; 
595377, 4041400; 595365, 4041437; 595365, 4041463; 595389, 4041491; 
595453, 4041513; 595516, 4041504; 595570, 4041472; 595597, 4041500; 
595597, 4041536; 595602, 4041585; 595627, 4041649; 595635, 4041663; 
595716, 4041696; 595759, 4041700; 595783, 4041693; 595801, 4041670; 
595825, 4041613; 595827, 4041585; 595813, 4041551; 595807, 4041531; 
595812, 4041518; 595844, 4041470; 595915, 4041508; 595889, 4041596; 
595951, 4041638; 595966, 4041648; 595986, 4041664; 595850, 4041803; 
595867, 4041802; 595891, 4041808; 595893, 4041869; 595904, 4041919; 
595915, 4041930; 595910, 4041935; 595945, 4041988; 595990, 4042022; 
596063, 4042063; 596142, 4042098; 596156, 4042104; 596211, 4042114; 
596241, 4042109; 596269, 4042011; 596275, 4041978; 596276, 4041975; 
596317, 4041764; 596343, 4041583; 596373, 4041510; 596515, 4041436; 
596694, 4041433; 596927, 4041428; 597048, 4041584; 597068, 4041628; 
597136, 4041714; 597204, 4041766; 597235, 4041783; 597291, 4041803; 
597332, 4041812; 597381, 4041807; 597425, 4041787; 597461, 4041754; 
597484, 4041711; 597492, 4041663; 597484, 4041614; 597467, 4041579; 
597441, 4041550; 597408, 4041528; 597363, 4041511; 597341, 4041491; 
597323, 4041415; 597248, 4041313; 597288, 4041280; 597098, 4041279; 
597103, 4041079; 597060, 4041079; 597045, 4041092; 596996, 4041118; 
596889, 4041130; 596702, 4041138; 596646, 4041140; 596553, 4041137; 
596503, 4041119; 596451, 4041086; 596363, 4041006; 596211, 4040900; 
596003, 4040843; 595913, 4040829; 595905, 4040827; 595884, 4040824; 
595865, 4040825; 595753, 4040829; 595629, 4040826; 595611, 4040841; 
595574, 4040832; 595575, 4040825; 595539, 4040822; 595537, 4040822; 
595497, 4040858; 595465, 4040822; 595393, 4040831; 595371, 4040840; 
595366, 4040838; 595297, 4040891; returning to 595261, 4040950.
    (ii) Note: Unit 7 is depicted on Map 5 in paragraph (14)(ii) of 
this entry.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 60449]]

    (14) Unit 8: Palo Colorado, Monterey County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Soberanes Point. Land 
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 598818, 
4027785; 598823, 4027824; 598834, 4027852; 598855, 4027884; 598877, 
4027904; 599017, 4027985; 599111, 4028022; 599176, 4028075; 599179, 
4028121; 599198, 4028182; 599233, 4028238; 599262, 4028268; 599316, 
4028304; 599373, 4028315; 599431, 4028304; 599479, 4028271; 599498, 
4028249; 599518, 4028204; 599522, 4028146; 599508, 4028099; 599476, 
4028056; 599471, 4028019; 599511, 4027964; 599527, 4027921; 599543, 
4027880; 599551, 4027832; 599546, 4027793; 599531, 4027757; 599514, 
4027733; 599484, 4027707; 599430, 4027685; 599362, 4027687; 599326, 
4027702; 599282, 4027741; 599266, 4027766; 599135, 4027707; 599026, 
4027647; 598988, 4027637; 598949, 4027637; 598893, 4027655; 598855, 
4027686; 598830, 4027728; 598821, 4027756; returning to 598818, 
4027785.
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 7 and 8 (Map 5) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC07.004
    

[[Page 60450]]


* * * * *

    Dated: October 5, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 07-5136 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C