[Federal Register: October 16, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 200)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 63967-64007]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[[Page 63967]]


Part II

Department of the Interior


Fish and Wildlife Service


50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz Tarplant); Final 

[[Page 63968]]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AG73

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation 
of Critical Habitat for Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz Tarplant)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.


SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), for Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant). 
Approximately 1,175 hectares (2,902 acres) of land in Contra Costa, 
Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties, California, fall within the 
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. This critical habitat 
designation provides additional protection under section 7 of the Act 
with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal 
agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other 
relevant impacts when specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. We solicited data and comments from the public on all aspects 
of the proposed rule, including data on economic and other impacts of 
the designation, and our approaches for handling any future habitat 
conservation plans.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on November 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation, used in the preparation of this final rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Rutherford, Ventura Fish and 
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone 805/644-
1766; facsimile 805/644-3958. Information regarding this proposal is 
available in alternate formats upon request.



    Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant) is an aromatic annual 
herb in the aster family (Asteraceae) that is restricted to coastal 
terrace prairie habitat along the coast of central California. 
Holocarpha macradenia is one of only four species of the genus 
Holocarpha. All four are geographically restricted to California. The 
plant is rigid with lateral branches that grow to the height of the 
main stem, which is 10 to 50 centimeters (cm) (4 to 20 inches (in)) 
tall. The lower leaves are broadly linear and up to 12 cm (5 in) long; 
the upper leaves are smaller, with rolled back margins, and are 
truncated by a distinctive craterform (open pitted) gland. The yellow 
daisy-like flower head is surrounded from beneath by individual bracts 
(small leaf-like structures associated with the flower head) that have 
about 25 stout gland-tipped projections (Keil 1993). H. macradenia is 
distinguished from other members of the genus by its numerous ray 
flowers and black anthers.
    Holocarpha macradenia, like other closely related tarplants in the 
genus Deinandra, is self-incompatible, meaning that individuals will 
not produce viable seeds without cross pollinating with other 
individuals (B. Baldwin, in litt., 2001). Gene flow from individual to 
individual and from population to population increases the likelihood 
of viability through the maintenance of genetic diversity; therefore 
gene flow is important for the long-term survival of self-incompatible 
species (Ellstrand 1992). Gene flow often occurs through pollen 
movement between populations, and likely occurs over short distances; 
most of the native insects thought to pollinate H. macradenia generally 
travel less than 0.5 kilometers (km) (0.3 miles (mi)) at one time 
(Waser, in litt., 2002). Clusters of small populations of H. macradenia 
may facilitate greater gene flow; therefore, even the conservation of 
small occurrences may be critical to maintaining genetic diversity in 
this species. Native bees, bee flies, and wasps have been observed 
visiting H. macradenia flowers (Sue Bainbridge, Jepson Herbarium, 
University of California, Berkeley, pers. comm., 2001).
    Seed production in Holocarpha macradenia is highly variable. A 
large, multi-branched individual may produce 25 seed heads with up to 
15 seeds per head, while individuals growing in crowded conditions may 
be unbranched and produce only one seed head (S. Bainbridge, pers. 
comm., 2001). Floral heads produce two kinds of achenes (seeds), disc 
and ray. The disc achenes readily germinate under field and lab 
conditions, but appear to lose viability within 18 months of production 
(Bainbridge 1999; S. Bainbridge, pers. comm., 2001). In contrast, the 
ray achenes do not germinate readily under field and lab conditions; 
they represent the persistent soil seed bank (a reserve of dormant 
seeds, generally found in the soil) in the field, and germination may 
be delayed for many years until further environmental cues break their 
dormancy (Bainbridge 1999).
    The disc achenes usually fall from the receptacle to the ground 
below the parent plant, while the ray achenes are enclosed in a sticky 
glandular phyllary (leaf-like structure) which aides dispersal by 
attaching to animals. Those animals likely to assist in seed dispersal 
include, but are not limited to, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), gray 
foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), coyotes (Canis latrans), black-tailed 
jackrabbits (Lepus californicus), bobcats (Felis rufus), striped skunks 
(Mephitis mephitis), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), racoons (Procyon 
lotor), and other small mammals and small birds.
    The Holocarpha macradenia seed bank is important to the species' 
year-to-year and long-term survival (Bainbridge 1999). A seed bank 
includes all seeds in a population and generally covers a larger area 
than the extent of observable plants seen in a given year. The extent 
of seed bank reserves is variable from population to population. For 
example, in 1999 at the Twin Lakes population of H. macradenia in Santa 
Cruz, the seed bank density averaged 240 seeds per square meter (m \2\) 
(10 square feet (ft \2\)); at the Watsonville Airport, the seed bank 
density averaged 887 seeds per m \2\ (10 ft \2\); at the Porter Ranch 
population in northern Monterey County, the seed bank density averaged 
40,000 seeds per m \2\ (10 ft \2\) (Bainbridge 1999; S. Bainbridge, 
pers. comm., 2001).
    The number and location of standing plants (observable plants) in a 
population varies annually. For example, the Graham Hill population 
near Santa Cruz comprised 12,000 standing plants in 1994 and 550 in 
2001 (V. Haley, consultant, Felton, CA, pers. comm., 2001); the Apple 
Hill population near Watsonville comprised 0 standing plants in 1999; 
4,049 in 2000; and 1,330 in 2002 (T. Edell, in litt., 2000; 2002). This 
annual variation in standing plants is due to a number of factors, 
including the amount and timing of rainfall, temperature, soil 
conditions, and extent and nature of the seed bank.
    Management activities can affect the balance between the number of 
standing plants and the extent of seed bank reserves. Burning, mowing, 
and scraping habitat for Holocarpha macradenia have been utilized to 
enhance populations at several sites, including Graham Hill, Arana 
Gulch, Twin Lakes, Tan, and Apple Hill, with variable results. At the 
Watsonville Airport site, H. macradenia habitat

[[Page 63969]]

adjacent to runways has been mowed, disced, and grazed to maintain 
visibility for airport operations. While this management has increased 
the density of H. macradenia, the vigor of individual plants appears to 
be in decline, and the seed bank reserve may be becoming depleted (Deb 
Hillyard, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), pers. comm., 
    Habitat for Holocarpha macradenia historically consisted of 
grasslands and prairies found on coastal terraces below 100 meters (m) 
(330 feet (ft)) in elevation, from Monterey County north to Marin 
County (CNDDB 2001). In the late 1800s, coastal prairies were estimated 
to cover 350,000 hectares (ha) (865,000 acres (ac)) in California 
(Huenneke 1989). Historically, four major factors contributed to 
changes in the distribution and composition of coastal prairies: 
Livestock grazing; the introduction of highly competitive, nonnative 
species; the elimination of periodic fire; and cultivation (Heady et 
al. 1988). The remaining coastal prairie habitat in the Monterey Bay 
area, as well as in the rest of the State, is becoming increasingly 
fragmented and restricted in distribution, largely due to these same 
factors as well as urban development.
    In the Santa Cruz area, Holocarpha macradenia exists on flat to 
gently sloping marine terrace platforms that are separated by steep-
sided gulches. A series of populations occur on older marine terraces 
inland from the communities of Santa Cruz and Soquel; these terraces 
range in elevation from about 34 to 122 m (110 to 400 ft). Two 
populations (Arana Gulch and Twin Lakes) occur on a more recent marine 
terrace at lower elevations (12 to 18 m (40 to 60 ft)) and closer to 
the ocean. In the Watsonville area in Santa Cruz County, a series of H. 
macradenia populations occur on a low-lying marine terrace (15 to 37 m 
(50 to 120 ft) in elevation) that is dissected by Harkins Slough, 
Hanson Slough, and Struve Slough; the close proximity of these 
populations suggest that they were once part of a larger population 
that has since been fragmented by changes in land use over the past 100 
years. Approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) north of Watsonville, several H. 
macradenia populations are located on a marine terrace 55 m (180 ft) in 
elevation. Approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) south of Watsonville a 
population occurs at an elevation of 30 m (100 ft) on alluvium 
(sedimentary material deposited by flowing water) resulting from marine 
terrace deposits. On the east side of San Francisco Bay (Contra Costa 
County), the marine terraces are more extensively dissected, and H. 
macradenia populations historically occurred on the alluvium resulting 
from terrace deposits (Palmer 1986).
    In Santa Cruz County, where most of the remaining native 
populations of Holocarpha macradenia occur, the soils most typically 
found on marine terraces and the alluvial deposits derived from them 
are of several soil series (Brabb 1989; SCS 1978, 1980). The 
Watsonville, Tierra, Elkhorn, and Pinto soil series are most frequently 
associated with occurrences of H. macradenia. These loams and sandy 
loams are deep and range from well drained to somewhat poorly drained. 
Other soil series, including Los Osos, Elder, and Diablo, are also 
located in the vicinity of known populations of H. macradenia, but due 
to the scale used for mapping the distribution of soils, we cannot 
determine the importance of these soils to this species.
    Because the soils where Holocarpha macradenia occurs typically 
include a subsurface clay component, they hold moisture longer into the 
growing season compared to the surrounding sandy soils. As a summer-
blooming species, H. macradenia may benefit from this late season 
moisture (CDFG 1995); alternatively, the saturated soil conditions 
during the spring season may be too wet for many other species to 
become established, and therefore maintain the reduced cover that H. 
macradenia prefers (Grey Hayes, University of California, Santa Cruz, 
pers. comm., 2001).
    Today, the Santa Cruz tarplant is associated most frequently with 
grasses such as Avena fatua (nonnative wild oat), Hordeum murinum 
(barley), Briza maxima (rattlesnake grass), Vulpia spp. (vulpia), and 
Bromus sp. (bromes); frequent native associates include Juncus spp. 
(rushes) and Danthonia californica (California oatgrass). Associated 
native herbaceous species include other tarplants from the genus 
Hemizonia. At some locations, the plant is found with rare or sensitive 
species, including Perideridia gairdneri (Gairdner's yampah), 
Plagiobothrys diffusus (San Francisco popcorn flower), Trifolium 
buckwestiorum (Santa Cruz clover), and the Ohlone tiger beetle 
(Cicindela ohlone), a species listed as endangered (Service 2001). 
Other locally unique plant species such as Plagiobothrys chorisianus 
var. chorisianus (Choris's popcorn flower), Triteleia ixiodes 
(Triteleia), Eryngium armatum (coast coyote thistle), and Grindelia 
hirsutula var. maritima (San Francisco gumplant) also occur in these 
areas (CNDDB 2001; Hayes 2002; Stromberg, et al. 2001).
    The distribution of Holocarpha macradenia has been severely reduced 
due to continuing destruction and alteration of coastal prairie 
habitat. All the native San Francisco Bay area populations have been 
extirpated. The last remaining native population in this area, known as 
the Pinole Vista population, consisting of 10,000 plants, was 
eliminated in 1993 by commercial development (CDFG 1997).
    Along Monterey Bay in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, 
approximately 13 populations are extant. According to CNDDB, an 
additional nine populations along the Monterey Bay have been extirpated 
by development, most recently in 1993 when a population in Watsonville 
(Anna Street site) was destroyed during construction of office 
buildings and a parking lot (CDFG 1993, 1995). Other populations have 
declined or have recently disappeared due to changes in grassland 
management that favor species which compete with Holocarpha macradenia. 
Where habitat is still intact, management favorable to H. macradenia 
can reverse these trends and allow seeds in the dormant seed bank of 
the species to germinate and grow. The ability to provide appropriate 
management for the remaining occurrences of H. macradenia will be 
pivotal in the recovery of the species.
    Holocarpha macradenia is currently known from approximately 13 
native and 8 experimentally seeded populations (CNDDB 2001, CDFG 2000) 
in Contra Costa, Monterey, and Santa Cruz Counties. Some of the native 
populations may represent separate, fragmented patches of what 
historically was a single larger population. Seven of the native 
populations occur around the cities of Santa Cruz and Soquel. These 
populations, with the number of standing plants and year of the most 
recent survey, are: Graham Hill Road, 575-650 individuals (2002); De 
Laveaga, ``several thousand'' individuals (2001), Arana Gulch, 10,000 
individuals (2002); Twin Lakes, 21 individuals (2002); O'Neill/Tan, 0 
individuals (2001); Winkle (also referred to as Santa Cruz Gardens), 0 
individuals (1994); and Fairway, 150 individuals (2001) (V. Haley, in 
litt., 2002; Root 2001; Seals 2002; S. Bainbridge, in litt., 2002; 
Rigney 2001; CNDDB 2001; Rutherford, pers. obs., 2001). The names of 
the populations used here are those used in the final rule to list the 
species published on March 20, 2000 (65 FR 14898).
    The remaining six native populations occur around the city of 
Watsonville. Four of these are bounded generally by Corralitos Creek, 
Harkins Slough, Watsonville Slough, and the city of

[[Page 63970]]

Watsonville; they may represent remnants of a larger population. These 
four populations, with their number of standing plants and year of the 
most recent survey are: Watsonville Airport, 2,492,000 individuals 
(2001); Harkins Slough, 15,000 individuals (1993); Apple Hill, 1,330 
individuals (2002); and Struve Slough, 1 individual (1994). Two 
outlying populations in the Watsonville area are: Spring Hills Golf 
Course, 4,000 individuals (1990); and Porter Ranch, 120,000 individuals 
(2001) (Duffy & Associates 2002; CNDDB 2001; Edell, in litt., 2002; 
Bainbridge, in litt., 2002).
    The eight experimentally seeded populations of Holocarpha 
macradenia have resulted from the planting of seed in Wildcat Regional 
Park in the east San Francisco Bay area (East Bay). The final rule to 
list H. macradenia (65 FR 14898) included a discussion of these efforts 
to establish new populations within the historic range of the species. 
Twenty-two sites were seeded between 1982 and 1986 in what appeared to 
be suitable habitat but representing a range of conditions based on the 
following criteria: soil series (Tierra as well as five others), 
grazing pressure (light or moderate), and exposure to coastal fog (fog, 
wind but no fog, and out of wind). The seeds used for planting had been 
collected from East Bay populations at the northern end of the species' 
range. Although a number of populations did well for a few years, many 
have failed to persist. Of the eight populations that have persisted at 
least for 14 years, only one, Mezue, has consistently supported large 
numbers of individuals. In the year 2000, this population was the 
largest it has been since the initial seeding in 1983 and supported 
over 17,000 individuals (CDFG 2000).
    Very recently, three population introductions have been attempted 
in conjunction with research on the effects of different grazing 
regimes on the suite of herb species (as opposed to grass species) 
within native coastal prairie. Two of the seeding attempts are located 
just north and west of the city of Santa Cruz, and one is in northern 
Monterey County within the Elkhorn critical habitat unit. Although it 
is too early to assess the degree of success these efforts will 
achieve, the population within the Elkhorn unit appears to be doing the 
best of the three at this point (Holl, in litt., 2002).
    Several agencies have taken the initiative to undertake efforts to 
enhance habitat for H. macradenia. In conjunction with the CDFG, the 
city of Santa Cruz has been applying a variety of habitat manipulations 
to plots within the Arana Gulch Open Space Preserve, including raking, 
scraping, mowing, and controlled burning with the objective of 
increasing the number of standing individuals, which had been in 
decline since grazing was terminated in the 1980s (CDFG 1997). The CDFG 
has been applying habitat manipulations (mowing, burning, and scraping) 
and carrying out seed bank studies (Bainbridge 1999). The California 
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has been mowing the Apple Hill 
population west of Watsonville to reduce the biomass of nonnative 
grasses (T. Edell, in litt., 1998). While the interpretation of results 
can be complex, these efforts generally show that the number of 
standing individuals may be increased by reducing the potential for 
competition between H. macradenia and nonnative grasses through these 
management practices. However, increasing the number of standing 
individuals may also deplete seed bank reserves; therefore, the goals 
of appropriate management should include not only increasing the number 
of standing individuals in small populations, but also maintaining the 
appropriate balance between standing individuals and seed bank 
    Several proposed development projects will impact habitat for 
Holocarpha macradenia. Housing developments have been approved for 
several sites including the Graham Hill site and the Fairway site, but 
management plans for H. macradenia have not yet been fully implemented. 
A management plan for H. macradenia has been initiated for the Tan 
population, but has not yet resulted in enhancement of the population. 
Approval for a housing development adjacent to the Winkle population is 
pending. A housing development for the Struve Slough was recently 
approved without any active management plan for H. macradenia. As a 
result of a legal challenge, Watsonville Wetlands Watch has been 
granted 3 years to raise funding to purchase a 2-ha (6-ac) portion of 
the site that supports H. macradenia for conservation purposes 
(Superior Court of the State of California 2001).
    As has been observed at the Watsonville Airport, human activities, 
such as mowing and cattle grazing can favor the abundance of Holocarpha 
macradenia by reducing competition from other herbaceous species. 
However, because these activities can also promote the spread and 
establishment of nonnative species, they may need to be repeated at 
frequent intervals or at certain times to maintain the establishment of 
H. macradenia. Such intensive management may not be practical in all 
areas where H. macradenia habitat includes a complement of nonnative 
species. Moreover, while the presence of H. macradenia could be 
maintained in areas with a high abundance of nonnative species, the 
habitat quality of these areas for H. macradenia may be less than areas 
where the presence of nonnative species is minimal. Research on the 
effects of different frequencies of mowing, litter removal, and soil 
disturbances on habitat for H. macradenia is ongoing by researchers at 
the University of California (UC) at Santa Cruz and UC Berkeley's 
Jepson Herbarium (Holl, in litt., 2002; Bainbridge, in litt., 2002b) 
and will contribute to our understanding of how to optimize management 
efforts to benefit this species.
    Based on the presence of other fragments of remaining coastal 
terrace prairie habitat, we believe that additional populations of 
Holocarpha macradenia may occur within the current range of the species 
but have not yet been detected. In particular, suitable habitat most 
likely remains on older coastal terraces that lie to the north of the 
cities of Santa Cruz and Soquel. These areas may contain a viable seed 
bank, even if no standing plants are found.
    Holocarpha macradenia is threatened primarily by historic and 
recent habitat destruction caused by residential development and 
habitat alteration caused primarily by land management practices that 
favor the increase of other species which compete with H. macradenia. 
Most often, the establishment of invasive, competing species follows 
from the cessation of grazing by cattle or horses. Future loss of 
habitat may also result from recreational development, airport 
expansion, and agriculture. Habitat that has been set aside in 
preserves, conservation easements, and open spaces also suffers 
secondary impacts from: (1) Casual use by residents; (2) introduction 
of invasive species; (3) lack of active management; and (4) changes in 
hydrology. In particular, smaller preserve areas with H. macradenia 
suffer because they are cut off from many ecosystem functions dependent 
upon soil and hydrologic characteristics that would be present in 
larger, more contiguous sites. More often, these smaller areas are left 
as open spaces, but without the benefit of the grassland management 
needed to sustain them.
    Nonnative species that have invaded and threaten habitat supporting 
native populations of Holocarpha macradenia include Genista 
monspessulana (French broom), Eucalyptus sp. (eucalyptus),

[[Page 63971]]

Acacia decurrens and A. melanoxylon (acacia), and a number of nonnative 
grass species, particularly Phalaris aquatica (Harding grass) and 
Bromus spp. (bromes). In Wildcat Regional Park in the East Bay area, 
Cynara cardunculus (artichoke thistle) has invaded habitat for H. 
macradenia at the one site that is being designated as critical habitat 
(Mezue), as well as many of the other sites where introduced 
populations of H. macradenia were attempted. Picris echiodes (Bristly 
ox-tongue) has recently invaded the population of H. macradenia at the 
Elkhorn unit (Holl, in litt., 2002).

Previous Federal Action

    Federal action on this plant began when the Secretary of the 
Smithsonian Institution, as directed by section 12 of the Act, prepared 
a report on those native U.S. plants considered to be endangered, 
threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report (House Doc. 
No. 94-51), was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975, and included 
Holocarpha macradenia as endangered. On July 1, 1975, we published a 
notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27823) accepting the report as a 
petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of 
the Act and of our intention thereby to review the status of the plant 
taxa named therein. On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in 
the Federal Register (41 FR 24523) determining approximately 1,700 
vascular plant species to be endangered pursuant to section 4 of the 
Act. Holocarpha macradenia was included in this June 16, 1976, Federal 
Register document.
    In 1978, amendments to the Act required that all proposals over two 
years old be withdrawn. A one-year grace period was given to those 
proposed rules already more than two years old. Later, on December 10, 
1979, we published a notice (44 FR 70796) of the withdrawal of the 
portion of the June 16, 1976, proposed rule that had not been made 
final, along with four other proposed rules that had expired. We 
published an updated notice of review (NOR) for plants on December 15, 
1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice included Holocarpha macradenia as a 
category one candidate (species for which data in our possession was 
sufficient to support proposals for listing).
    On February 15, 1983, we published a notice (48 FR 6752) of our 
prior finding that the listing of Holocarpha macradenia was warranted 
but precluded in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act as 
amended in 1982. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, this 
finding must be recycled annually, until the species is either proposed 
for listing, or the petitioned action is found to be not warranted. 
Each October from 1983 through 1990 further findings were made that the 
listing of H. macradenia was warranted, but that the listing of this 
species was precluded by other pending proposals of higher priority.
    Holocarpha macradenia continued to be included as a category one 
candidate in plant NORs published September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526), 
February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). 
Upon publication of the February 28, 1996, NOR (61 FR 7596), we ceased 
using category designations and included H. macradenia as a candidate. 
Candidate species are those for which we have on file sufficient 
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support 
proposals to list them as threatened or endangered. The 1997 NOR, 
published September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398) retained H. macradenia as a 
candidate, with a listing priority of 2. On March 20, 1998, we 
published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (63 FR 15142) to list 
H. macradenia. The final rule listing H. macradenia as a threatened 
species was published on March 20, 2000 (65 FR 14898).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations 
exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species. At the time Holocarpha 
macradenia was listed, we found that designation of critical habitat 
for H. macradenia was prudent, but that given our limited listing 
budget, designation of critical habitat would have to be deferred so as 
to allow us to concentrate limited resources on higher priority 
critical habitat and other listing actions.
    On June 17, 1999, our failure to issue final rules for listing 
Holocarpha macradenia and eight other plant species as endangered or 
threatened, and our failure to make a final critical habitat 
determination for the nine species was challenged in Southwest Center 
for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society v. Babbitt 
(Case No. C99-2992 (N.D.Cal.)). On May 22, 2000, the judge signed an 
order for the Service to propose critical habitat for the species by 
September 30, 2001. In mid-September 2001, plaintiffs agreed to a brief 
extension of this due date until November 2, 2001. The proposed rule to 
designate critical habitat for the species was signed on November 2, 
2001, and sent to the Federal Register.
    The proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the species was 
published on November 15, 2001 (66 FR 57526). In the proposal, we 
determined it was prudent to designate approximately 1,360 ha (3,360 
ac) of land in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties as critical habitat for 
Holocarpha macradenia. Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day 
public comment period, which closed on January 14, 2002.
    On May 7, 2002, we published a notice announcing the reopening of 
the comment period on the proposal to designate critical habitat for 
Holocarpha macradenia and a notice of availability of the draft 
economic analysis on the proposed determination (67 FR 30642). This 
second public comment period closed on June 6, 2002. On May 16, 2002, 
the plaintiffs agreed to extend the date upon which we are to make a 
final rule determination for critical habitat to September 30, 2002.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, 
scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them 
to comment. In addition, we invited public comment through the 
publication of notices in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on November 21; the 
Monterey Herald on November 20; the San Jose Mercury on November 20; 
and the Oakland Tribune on November 22; all in the year 2001. We 
received individually written letters from 18 parties, which included 4 
designated peer reviewers, 1 Federal agency, 2 State agencies, and 3 
local jurisdictions. Of these 18 parties, 13 supported the proposed 
designation and 5 were neutral regarding the designation of critical 
habitat for this species; however, 1 of those supporting the 
designation and 3 of those that were neutral requested that areas they 
own, manage, or have planning jurisdiction over, be excluded from 
critical habitat designation.
    We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new 
information regarding critical habitat and Holocarpha macradenia. 
Similar comments were grouped into general

[[Page 63972]]

issues and are addressed in the following summary.

Biological Issues

    1. Comment: The need for the 9 smaller units, ranging in size from 
7 to 170 acres, is well justified given specific information about the 
status of the Holocarpha macradenia populations. However, the need for 
the two larger units (I and J near Watsonville), which together 
comprise almost half of the 3,360 acres proposed for designation, is 
not adequately justified.
    Our Response: The varying size of the units is in part due to their 
location relative to the configuration of the coastal terraces in the 
vicinity as well as patterns of development. For instance, in the hills 
north of Santa Cruz and extending down to the Soquel area, the coastal 
terrace is strongly dissected by a series of drainages, leaving small 
fingers of terrace jutting southward. Populations of Holocarpha 
macradenia that occur on these terraces are necessarily restricted in 
distribution by geography, and then more so by human development. In 
contrast, the coastal terrace in the vicinity of Watsonville occurs as 
a larger block that is only weakly dissected by swales and drainages, 
resulting in a more rolling hill landscape. As discussed in this rule, 
numerous historic locations of H. macradenia have been noted in the 
Watsonville area. This leads us to conclude that H. macradenia was once 
widespread throughout the coastal terraces in the area. We believe the 
designation of larger critical habitat units in the Watsonville area is 
consistent with the available information on landforms, soils and 
historic occurrences of the species.
    As discussed below, Units I and J are essential because they 
support many populations of H. macradenia, as well as the grassland 
habitat that is important to expanding existing populations and 
maintaining connectivity between them. These units also represent two 
of the three areas in the central Monterey Bay area and the southern 
end of the range of the species that support populations of H. 
macradenia. Unit J also contains the most inland distribution of the 
species. Preserving the genetic variability within a species, by 
conserving populations with unique characteristics such as the ability 
to persist at the edge of the species' range, allows it to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions, and is therefore is essential to the 
long-term survival and conservation of the species.
    2. Comment: The proposed designation of 3,360 acres seems excessive 
for a species that is only listed as threatened.
    Our Response: The Act and its implementing regulations do not 
provide for different standards when considering critical habitat for a 
threatened species as opposed to an endangered species. Other species 
listed as threatened have had much larger acreages designated. The 
extent of acreage designated in this rule, as in all of our critical 
habitat rules, is tied to the amount of habitat that supports the 
primary constituent elements for the species, and where the species is 
known to occur. Based on the remaining amount of habitat and what is 
known about the historic and current range of Holocarpha macradenia, we 
conclude that the amount of critical habitat being designated is 
essential for maintaining populations of H. macradenia, as well as the 
grassland habitat and the ecological functions that are important for 
the expansion of existing populations and maintaining connectivity 
between them.
    3. Comment: Three commenters indicated that additional critical 
habitat should be designated in the East Bay region (Alameda and Contra 
Costa Counties) in support of additional reintroduction efforts for 
Holocarpha macradenia within its historic range. One commenter 
specified that habitat for at least five populations should be 
designated in this area and that seed used should represent the remains 
of the ``northern'' gene stock.
    Our Response: We agree that maintaining the northern gene stock is 
important to the conservation and recovery of the species, and that 
attempting to establish additional populations in the East Bay region 
is an important recovery task. Although we are only designating one 
area in the East Bay region as critical habitat, we believe that the 
relatively large size and long-term stability of the population in this 
unit made it the most important to designate at this time. We are 
required to designate those areas we know to be critical habitat, using 
the best information available to us at the time. When we designate 
critical habitat at the time of listing, as required under Section 4 of 
the Act, or under court-ordered deadlines, we may not have the 
information necessary to identify all areas that are essential for the 
conservation of the species. Additional habitat outside the designated 
areas may later be discovered to be critical for the recovery of the 
species. We will soon be developing a recovery plan for Holocarpha 
macradenia, and look forward to developing specific recovery 
recommendations for the species, including the need for establishing 
additional populations within the historic range of the species in the 
East Bay.

Management Considerations

    4. Comment: We received comments from several land managers as well 
as academic researchers that are currently evaluating the role that 
grazing and fire may have in maintaining habitat for Holocarpha 
macradenia. A number of suggestions were offered about how the species 
responds to different types of management and how discussion of these 
management options should be framed in the rule.
    Our Response: We appreciate the numerous suggestions we received to 
expand discussions regarding management, and we have incorporated some 
of these suggestions into the rule in the Background section and the 
Special Management Considerations section. However, we have limited the 
level of detail to which the discussion has been expanded, because it 
could go well beyond the scope of the current critical habitat 
designation process. We suggest that these issues be discussed further 
at the time we are developing a recovery plan for the species.

Economic Comments

    5. Comment: We received one comment recommending that we use the 
contingent valuation method (CVM) to determine the hypothetical nonuse 
values for the plant species and its habitat that comprise this 
    Our Response: Economists recognize that in addition to a ``use 
value'' that society places on natural resources these goods may also 
exhibit a ``non-use value'' by society. For example, while many people 
may elect to visit a public park and ``use'' it for a variety of 
recreational purposes, the presence of this park may provide a variety 
of benefits to additional members of society even though their 
enjoyment may not be directly observable. Certain individuals may also 
derive benefits from the park because of the protection it offers to 
certain natural resources including a diverse ecosystem that harbors 
endangered and threatened species. While these members of society may 
value the park merely for its existence, their behavior is not directly 
observable and thus economists have developed certain tools, including 
the CVM for measuring these values.
    CVM is an approach used by economists to directly elicit non-use 
values from individuals through the use of carefully designed survey 
instruments. A CVM study will provide respondents with a framework 

[[Page 63973]]

they are asked to value the resource given the parameters of the 
framework. For the CVM to work properly, and provide meaningful 
information on non-use values, considerable resources must be expended 
to adequately design and administer this tool. However, it is not 
currently feasible for us to conduct CVM studies to capture the non-use 
values certain individuals may place on critical habitat designation 
due to our limited resources.
    In conducting our analyses, we do review economic literature to 
determine whether or not there are any existing studies that can 
provide information that would allow us to better describe and 
accurately quantify such benefits associated with the survival and 
recovery of the species and its habitat in question. However, even when 
such studies are identified, they usually do not allow for the 
separation of the benefits of listing (including the Act's take 
provisions) from the benefits of critical habitat designation.
    While we are often unable to quantify benefits that may be 
associated with the designation, our analyses do discuss potential 
benefits in a qualitative manner. This discussion is not intended to 
provide a complete analysis of the benefits that could result from 
section 7 of the Act in general or critical habitat designation in 
particular. In short, we believe that we are currently best able to 
express the benefits of critical habitat designation in biological 
terms that can be weighed against the expected cost impacts of the 
    We believe that this approach is consistent with the statutory 
requirements of the Act. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the 
Secretary to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best 
scientific data available after taking into consideration the economic 
impact and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area 
as critical habitat. This section of the Act continues on to state that 
the Secretary may exclude areas from the designation if he (she) 
determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
specifying such area as part of the designation. This language does not 
imply that the Secretary must apply a strict cost-benefit test to the 
exclusion process but instead gives her broad discretion in considering 
the best scientific and commercial data available when making a final 
decision. As a result, critical habitat decisions do not hinge solely 
on the results of a benefit-cost analysis. The designation of critical 
habitat units is first made on biological grounds, and when these 
decisions significantly impinge on economic activities, then the 
weighing of the costs and benefits of the proposed action are 
considered. In this particular instance, the economic analysis did not 
identify any significant economic impact associated with the 
    6. Comment: One commenter asserted that the designation of critical 
habitat causes officials of California's resource agencies, namely the 
California Coastal Commission (CCC) and the CDFG to identify the 
designated areas as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), and 
that land use within the ESHAs are restricted through the 
implementation of requirements of the California Coastal Act (CCA). 
Thus ESHAs could impose additional costs on the regulated community.
    Our Response: As stated in our addendum to the draft economic 
analysis, the CCA charges the CCC with implementing coastal management 
policies in conjunction with local governments in coastal zones in 15 
counties and 58 cities in California. These policies generally require 
the protection of fragile and/or scenic coastal habitat, improvement of 
public access (physical and visual) to the coast, the protection of 
agricultural land, and measures to direct growth towards urban areas 
and away from undeveloped coastal areas. The CCC also established the 
Local Coastal Program (LCP), which requires local coastal governments 
to prepare management plans for their coastal areas that must be 
approved by the CCC. Once a local government obtains CCC approval of 
its LCP, the authority to approve local development proposals is 
transferred from the CCC to the local government in most circumstances. 
The CCC maintains ``original jurisdiction'' over areas where no 
approved LCP exists, proposals on the immediate shoreline (below mean 
high tide), and proposals involving major public works or energy 
    In the process of approving and/or amending LCPs, or through 
reviewing applications under ``original jurisdiction,'' the CCC may 
establish certain coastal areas as ESHAs, depending on the habitat 
resources present and their role in healthy ecosystem function. ESHAs 
are established based on a site-specific field study of the project 
area in question by CCC biologists. Once established, the presence of 
an ESHA limits the type of development that can be approved to ``uses 
dependent only on those resources'' present in the ESHA.
    The most likely potential effect of critical habitat on the CCC's 
implementation of the CCA would be through the increased likelihood 
that an ESHA might be established following its designation. CCC 
personnel indicate that the presence of listed species nearly always 
results in the establishment of an ESHA. As a result, the designation 
of critical habitat would increase the likelihood of ESHA establishment 
in areas not previously known to be occupied by endangered or 
threatened species.
    While the presence of designated critical habitat is typically 
correlated with an ESHA, CCC staff confirm that the designation itself 
does not automatically result in an area becoming an ESHA. Rather, the 
designation of critical habitat is considered by CCC biologists as a 
potential source of additional information to be evaluated in the 
context of the quality of the underlying data and checked against 
existing knowledge and field surveys. CCC staff also indicate, however, 
that if habitat represents significant biological value for a State- or 
Federally-listed species, it is very likely this habitat would have 
already been identified through CCC biological surveys, and probably 
would have already been recommended as an ESHA. As a result, only if 
the designation of critical habitat adds new biological information 
might ESHAs be adjusted or established.
    In the case of the designation of critical habitat for Holocarpha 
macradenia, staff from the CCC's Central Coast District Office indicate 
that the proposed designation is unlikely to result in the 
establishment of any new ESHAs. The proposed critical habitat area 
falls within existing LCPs and, more importantly, the designation adds 
no new information regarding occupied or essential habitat areas. 
Consequently, the proposed designation of critical habitat is not 
likely to result in additional costs associated with the implementation 
of the CCA.

Comments on Site-Specific Areas

    7. Comment: The East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) requested 
that we make minor modifications to the boundaries of Unit A (Mezue) 
that occurs on lands they manage. The modifications are based on more 
detailed topographic and vegetation data that they were able to 
provide. The proposed modifications would remove some riparian habitat 
from the unit and add one small area at the top of the watershed 
upslope to where a population of Holocarpha macradenia is located.
    Our Response: We have modified the boundary to remove a few areas 
of riparian vegetation and a small area that was not within the 
subwatershed where the plant occurs. We are not able to include the 
small area at the top of the watershed within the final boundary

[[Page 63974]]

because we had not previously proposed to include it. These 
modifications resulted in a reduction of acreage in this unit from 61 
ha (150 ac) to 52 ha (130 ac).
    8. Comment: The California Army National Guard (CANG) requested 
that we remove 3 ha (7 ac) of lands that they own and manage known as 
the Santa Cruz Armory from Unit C (De Laveaga) of the proposed critical 
habitat designation. They fully support the efforts of the Service to 
protect Holocarpha macradenia and its habitat, and point out that they 
are directed by the Sikes Act (16USC 670a et seq.) to develop and 
implement an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for 
the Armory with certain criteria for maintaining biodiversity and using 
an adaptive management approach. They submitted a list of 11 management 
elements, some of which have already been implemented, that will be 
included in their INRMP.
    Our Response: Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act 
as--(i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
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 geographic 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. Special management and protection are not 
required if adequate management and protection are already in place. 
Adequate special management or protection is provided by a legally 
operative plan/agreement that addresses the maintenance and improvement 
of the primary constituent elements important to the species and that 
manages for the long-term conservation of the species. Areas that are 
currently being managed to address the conservation needs of Holocarpha 
macradenia, in accordance with plans we have reviewed and determined to 
be adequate, do not require special management within the meaning of 
section 3(5)(a)(i) of the Act and will not be included in this final 
    To determine if a plan provides adequate management or protection 
we consider--(1) Whether there is a current plan specifying the 
management actions and whether such actions provide sufficient 
conservation benefit to the species; (2) whether the plan provides 
assurances that the conservation management strategies will be 
implemented; and (3) whether the plan provides assurances that the 
conservation management strategies will be effective. In determining if 
management strategies are likely to be implemented, we consider 
whether--(a) A management plan or agreement exists that specifies the 
management actions being implemented or to be implemented; (b) there is 
a timely schedule for implementation; (c) there is a high probability 
that the funding source(s) or other resources necessary to implement 
the actions will be available; and (d) the party(ies) have the 
authority and long-term commitment to implement the management actions, 
as demonstrated, for example by a legal instrument providing enduring 
protection and management of the lands. In determining whether an 
action is likely to be effective, we consider whether--(a) The plan 
specifically addresses the management needs, including reduction of 
threats to the species; (b) such actions have been successful in the 
past; (c) there are provisions for monitoring and assessment of the 
effectiveness of the management actions; and (d) adaptive management 
principles have been incorporated into this plan.
    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) requires each 
military installation that encompasses land and water suitable for the 
conservation and management of natural resources to have completed, by 
November 17, 2001, an INRMP. An INRMP integrates implementation of the 
military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural 
resources found on the installation. Each INRMP includes an assessment 
of the ecological needs of the installation, including needs 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. Under section 7 of the Act, we consult with 
the military on the development and implementation of INRMPs for 
installations with listed species. Military installations with approved 
INRMPs which address the needs of species generally do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat discussed above as they require no 
additional special management or protection. Therefore, we do not 
include these areas in critical habitat designations if they meet the 
following three criteria: (1) A current INRMP must be complete and 
provide a benefit to the species; (2) the plan must provide assurances 
that the conservation management strategies will be implemented; and 
(3) the plan must provide assurances that the conservation management 
strategies will be effective, by providing for period monitoring and 
revisions as necessary. If all of these criteria are met, then the 
lands covered under the plan would not meet the definition of critical 
    We conclude that the CANG does not yet have an INRMP for the Santa 
Cruz Armory that sufficiently addresses the criteria above. These lands 
do not warrant exclusion from critical habitat designation because the 
proposed management plan has not been approved and does not contain 
assurances that the management actions it describes will be implemented 
or effective. Concerning the likelihood that management actions will be 
implemented, we note that the plan does not include a timely schedule 
for implementation and does not contain a commitment of financial 
resources. Concerning the likelihood that management actions will be 
effective, we note that there are no provisions for monitoring or 
assessing of their effectiveness, and adaptive management principles 
have not been incorporated into the draft plan. We appreciate the 
efforts that CANG has already made toward restoring and protecting 
habitat on these lands, including the removal of eucalyptus logs from 
Holocarpha macradenia habitat, and the removal of wood chips that were 
inadvertently spread on top of a portion of the population. The Service 
has agreed to work with CANG in the development of their INRMP, 
particularly as it pertains to the conservation of H. macradenia. If 
the INRMP sufficiently meets the criteria for exclusion from critical 
habitat upon its completion, the Service will consider revising the 
critical habitat designation to exclude the Santa Cruz Armory lands at 
a future date.
    Based upon a site visit with CANG staff to the Santa Cruz Armory, 
the Service has determined that a portion of the proposed critical 
habitat unit does not contain the primary constituent elements, 
specifically, the parking lot. By eliminating this area, the final 
critical habitat unit has been reduced from 3 ha (7 ac) to 2 ha (5 ac).
    9. Comment: The Pajaro Valley Unified School District (District) 
requested that we remove 28 ha (70 ac) of land they own, known as the 
Millennium High School site, from Unit I (Watsonville) of the critical 
habitat designation for two reasons. They contend that the site has 
been under cultivation for over a decade and that there is no evidence 
of the species or the habitat conditions that would support it. In 
addition, they are concerned that the

[[Page 63975]]

designation will ``create obstacles'' to the construction of the New 
Millennium High School. They also request the removal of Harkins Slough 
Road from critical habitat designation, because the planned 
improvements for this road, which will provide access to the High 
School, will be facing ``considerable difficulties.''
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states ``The Secretary 
shall designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under 
subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available 
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other 
relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat.'' Absent a finding by us that the economic or other relevant 
impacts of a critical habitat designation would outweigh the benefits 
of designation, the Act does not provide for the exclusion from 
critical habitat of private lands essential to the conservation of 
listed species. We believe that this parcel of land contains components 
essential to the conservation of H. macradenia because: (1) The site 
contains the primary constituent elements including the appropriate 
soils (Watsonville loams) and hydrology that are suitable for the 
species, and the site occurs within 1 km (0.5 mi) of 3 known locations 
for the species. Therefore, this site could provide habitat for the 
expansion of existing populations as well as maintain connectivity 
between existing populations by allowing gene flow between these 
populations through pollinator activity and seed dispersal. The 
importance of this site is also discussed in the description of the 
Watsonville unit. We believe that the designation of these lands in 
this final rule as critical habitat outweighs the benefits of their 
exclusion from being designated as critical habitat. The possible 
removal of these lands from the designation is also addressed in the 
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) section of this rule.
    With respect to the critical habitat designation creating 
``obstacles'' and ``difficulties'' in completing construction of the 
High School, the District did not specify what they believed these to 
be. However, we believe that the designation at this site will have 
little additional regulatory burden for the District because there will 
probably be little federal nexus to the project and therefore minimal 
requirement for them to consult under section 7 of the Act, if any. 
Just as this rule was being finalized, we received information 
indicating that construction of the High School had been initiated. 
Because this construction will remove the primary constituent elements 
from approximately 32 acres of the parcel on which the High School is 
being built, we are removing this portion that will be converted to 
buildings, paved surfaces, and playing fields from critical habitat 
designation. Because this information was received so close to the time 
of publication, we did not have the opportunity to redraw the map for 
this unit. The remaining 36 acres of the site will be slated for 
conservation and protected from development through permanent deed 
restrictions. Because the planned Harkins Slough Road improvements are 
partially funded with Federal funds, the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) will be consulting with us on the road due to the presence of 
California red-legged frog. The inclusion of critical habitat for 
Holocarpha macradenia in the same consultation is not expected to 
significantly increase the economic impact of the project on FHWA or 
the District.
    10. Comment: The City of Watsonville requested that a number of 
areas be removed from the critical habitat designation, including the 
following: the Millennium High School site; the Sea View Ranch site; an 
illegal fill site with an existing grading permit for remediation; the 
City's golf driving range; and the State Highway 1 right of way within 
the city limits. They believe these areas should be removed because 
they have recently been surveyed for the presence of Holocarpha 
macradenia and it was found not to be present. The City provided some 
additional information extracted from planning documents for some of 
these projects. In addition, CalTrans requested that areas within their 
right of way be excluded because the disturbance from routine 
maintenance activities makes them inappropriate for species recovery 
    Our Response: As stated in the section on Mapping in the body of 
this rule, some critical habitat units were mapped with greater 
precision than others, based on the available information, and the size 
of the unit. We appreciate the additional information that the City of 
Watsonville was able to provide to us. As discussed in the section on 
Primary Constituent Elements in this rule, we tried to map areas that 
contained soils associated with coastal terrace prairies, plant 
communities that support associated species, and the physical 
attributes, particularly the soils and hydrologic processes that 
produce the seasonally saturated soils characteristic of Holocarpha 
macradenia habitat. We have therefore removed portions of these areas 
from this critical habitat designation, including portions of the 
landfill parcel that are steep-sided canyons below the level of the 
coastal terrace, and the landfill itself. We have also removed the golf 
driving range because the soils have been altered by the placement of 
other soils on top of the native soils during the development of the 
range. Even though the proposed rule contains language to indicate that 
paved surfaces are not considered critical habitat, we have removed 
most of the State Highway 1 corridor from the area mapped as critical 
habitat. We have also removed 3 m (9 ft) on either side of the highway 
from critical habitat designation because this area needs to be kept 
free of vegetation for human health and safety reasons, and because the 
soil profile along the road shoulder has been modified such that it 
does not now contain the primary constituent elements for this taxon. 
However, we have not removed the remaining area within right of ways or 
other parcels from the critical habitat designation because, to the 
best of our knowledge, they occur on coastal terrace habitat that has 
native soils with the attendant hydrologic and edaphic processes still 
in place. They are essential to the conservation of the species because 
they are important for the expansion of existing populations and 
maintaining connectivity between them. Even though some of these 
locations have been converted to agriculture or have recently been 
graded, the native soils are still in place and these areas have the 
potential to be restored as habitat for H. macradenia. We believe that 
designating of these lands as critical habitat in this final rule 
outweighs the benefits of excluding them. The possible removal of these 
lands from the designation is also addressed in the Exclusions Under 
Section 4(b)(2) section of this rule.
    11. Comment: The City of Watsonville requested that only those 
portions of the Watsonville Airport that are identified in the Tarplant 
Mitigation Plan (Gilchrist 2001) be included in the critical habitat 
designation, thus excluding other portions of the airport.
    Our Response: The portions of the Airport that are paved with 
runways and roads or support buildings are not considered critical 
habitat for the species even though they are within the critical 
habitat boundaries; due to the scale of mapping, however, these areas 
could not be excluded on our maps. Of the remaining portions of the 
Airport, some are included in the Tarplant Mitigation Plan and some are 
not. However, we have included all of these areas within the critical 
habitat designation because they are contiguous

[[Page 63976]]

with areas that currently support Holocarpha macradenia, provide areas 
for expansion of the population, and provide connectivity between 
patches of the plant. In addition, this site supports the largest 
population of H. macradenia, and therefore is important as a seed bank 
should it become necessary to reseed other sites where populations are 

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited independent opinions from the Sustainable 
Ecosystems Institute (which provided two peer reviewers) as well as two 
other knowledgeable individuals with expertise in one or several 
fields, including familiarity with the species, familiarity with the 
geographic region in which the species occurs, and familiarity with the 
principles of conservation biology. All four peer reviewers supported 
the proposal, and provided us with comments which we incorporated into 
the final rule. Their comments included discussion on the following 
issues: The importance of maintaining the genetic stock from the 
northern portion of the species' range, as represented by the 
introduced populations in the East Bay area; the importance of 
appropriate management in maintaining populations of the species; the 
necessity of maintaining all critical habitat units for the species; 
and the relationship between annual population fluctuations and the 
areas being designated. One peer reviewer suggested that the discussion 
concerning the role of offsite hydrology in maintaining habitat for the 
species needed to be strengthened.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on a review of public comments received on the proposed 
determination of critical habitat, we reevaluated our proposed 
designation and the draft Economic Analysis and made several changes to 
the final designation of critical habitat. These include the following:
    (1) We made minor changes to the boundary lines on the Mezue Unit 
to remove riparian corridors and a small portion of habitat outside the 
subwatershed where Holocarpha macradenia occurs. These changes resulted 
in a reduction of 9 ha (21 ac) in this unit.
    (2) We made minor changes to the boundary lines on the De Laveaga 
Unit. The purpose of these changes was to draw the boundaries more 
precisely to eliminate the parking lot of the Santa Cruz Armory from 
within the boundary of the unit. This change resulted in a reduction of 
1 ha (2 ac) in this unit.
    (3) We made minor changes to the boundary lines on the Watsonville 
Unit. The purpose of these changes was to avoid areas that obviously 
did not contain the primary constituent elements, and for which we were 
unable to draw more precise boundaries at the time of the proposed 
designation. The use of recently acquired high-resolution aerial 
photographs dating from April 2000 enabled us to undertake this more 
precise mapping. These changes resulted in a total reduction of 174 ha 
(430 ac) in this final critical habitat designation. For all three of 
the units, the new boundary lines were drawn within the boundary lines 
shown in the proposed designation; in no case were the new boundary 
lines drawn outside of those described in the legal description for the 
units in the proposed designation.
    (4) We corrected the acreage figure for the Graham Hill Unit (Unit 
B) from 14 ha (35 ac) to 12 ha (30 ac). We had intended to propose 2 
additional hectares (5 ac) to the south of the current unit boundary. 
However, the boundaries showing this additional habitat and the 
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates describing their 
location were inadvertently left out of the proposed rule. The unit 
boundaries as depicted in this final rule encompass 12 ha (30 ac). 
Under the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, we are required to 
allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking. 
Therefore, because these new areas were not included in the proposed 
rule, we are not including them in the final rule. Although these areas 
were not included in the critical habitat proposal, they may be 
important to the recovery of the species and could be included in 
recovery activities in the future.
    (5) We added a section describing the Special Management 
Considerations or Protections that Holocarpha macradenia may require. 
We believe that this new section will assist land managers in 
developing management strategies for H. macradenia on their lands.

Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as--(i) the specific 
areas within the geographic 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 geographic 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'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point 
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition of destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. Aside from the added 
protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not 
provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical 
habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply 
to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve 
a Federal nexus, critical habitat designation would not afford any 
additional regulatory protections under the Act with regard to such 
    Critical habitat also provides nonregulatory benefits to the 
species by informing the public and private sectors of areas that are 
important for species recovery and where conservation actions would be 
most effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus 
conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that 
contain the physical and biological features essential for the 
conservation of that species, and can alert the public as well as land-
managing agencies to the importance of those areas. Critical habitat 
also identifies areas that may require special management 
considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas 
where significant threats to the species have been identified, by 
helping people to avoid causing accidental damage to such areas.
    In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the 
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' 
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the 
best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that 
provide essential life cycle needs of the species (primary constituent 
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act 
states that not all areas that can be occupied by a species should be 
designated as critical habitat unless the

[[Page 63977]]

Secretary determines that all such areas are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(e)) also 
state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas 
outside the geographic area presently occupied by the species only when 
a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to 
ensure the conservation of the species.''
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration 
the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the 
exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
    Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 
provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to 
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial 
data available. It requires our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial 
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 should be the listing package for the species. Additional 
information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, and biological assessments or 
other unpublished materials (i.e., gray literature).
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat 
based on what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often 
dynamic, and populations 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 newly discovered populations in the future, but are 
outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to 
conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 
the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 
7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, 
as determined on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of the action. Federally funded or assisted projects affecting 
listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may 
still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods of Selecting Areas for Critical Habitat Designation

    As required by the Act and regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR 
424.12) we used the best scientific information available to determine 
areas that contain the physical and biological features that are 
essential for the conservation of Holocarpha macradenia. This included 
information from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 
2001), geologic and soil survey maps (Brabb 1989; SCS 1980, 1978), 
aerial photos available through TerraServer (http://
terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com), aerial photos on loan from the County 
of Santa Cruz Planning Department, recent biological surveys and 
reports, additional information provided by interested parties, and 
discussions with botanical experts. Frequently accompanied by agency 
representatives, we also conducted site visits, either cursory or more 
extensive, at a number of locations managed by, or with involvement 
from, local, State or Federal agencies, including Graham Hill, De 
Laveaga Park, Twin Lakes State Beach, Arana Gulch Open Space Area (City 
of Santa Cruz), Anna Jean Cummings County Park (Santa Cruz County), and 
the Watsonville Airport (City of Watsonville). We also visited the 
Porter Ranch site, which is owned and managed by the Elkhorn Slough 

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    Much of what is known about the specific physical and biological 
requirements of Holocarpha macradenia is described in the Background 
section of this final rule. Additional information about appropriate 
management techniques is being generated by ongoing management efforts 
and research on life history. As discussed in the Background section, 
several agencies such as the CDFG, California Department of Parks and 
Recreation (CDPR), CalTrans, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, 
and EBRPD are undertaking efforts to learn how to better enhance 
habitat for H. macradenia. Some of these efforts are being carried out 
with the cooperation of researchers from UC Santa Cruz and Berkeley's 
Jepson Herbarium. Preliminary management and seed bank studies show 
that habitat manipulation such as burning, mowing, grazing, and 
scraping can increase standing numbers of plants and may be necessary 
to enhance and maintain populations of H. macradenia. Active management 
is often necessary to preserve habitat that is essential for the long-
term conservation of H. macradenia.
    Special management considerations or protections may be needed to 
maintain the primary constituent elements for Holocarpha macradenia 
within the units being designated as critical habitat. In some cases, 
protection of existing habitat and current ecological processes may be 
sufficient to ensure that populations of H. macradenia are maintained, 
and have the ability to reproduce and disperse into surrounding habitat 
at those sites. In other cases, however, active management may be 
needed to maintain the primary constituent elements for H. macradenia. 
We have outlined below the most likely special management or protection 
that H. macradenia may require.
    (1) The native soils on which Holocarpha macradenia is found should 
be maintained to optimize conditions for the species. Physical 
properties of the soil, such as its chemical composition, salinity, 
texture, and drainage capabilities would best be maintained by limiting 
or restricting deep tilling and the use of herbicides, fertilizers, or 
other soil amendments.
    (2) The hydrologic regime of the area surrounding Holocarpha 
macradenia habitat should be maintained to provide for the seasonally 
moist soils that the species favors. Increasing or decreasing surface 
and subsurface water flow to these areas through habitat alteration 
that either artificially adds water (e.g., through irrigation) or 
reduces water (e.g., through diversions associated with construction 
projects) could decrease the suitability of these areas to support H. 
    (3) The grassland communities should be maintained to ensure that 
the habitat needs of pollinators and dispersal agents are maintained. 
The use of pesticides should be limited or restricted so that viable 
populations of pollinators are present to facilitate reproduction of 

[[Page 63978]]

macradenia. Fragmentation of habitat through construction of roads and 
certain types of fencing should be sufficiently limited to allow seed 
dispersal agents to move H. macradenia seed throughout the unit.
    (4) The grassland communities need to be maintained to facilitate 
germination and the establishment of seedlings, because this is a 
critical bottleneck in the life cycle of the species (Bainbridge, in 
litt., 2002b). In particular, this portion of the species' life cycle 
requires a reduced litter layer and canopy height of surrounding 
vegetation. This can be achieved through either mowing or livestock 
grazing. A discussion of more detailed prescriptions is beyond the 
scope of this rule, as the optimal regime will vary from site to site, 
depending on a number of variables. However, research efforts that are 
currently underway will assist in developing more site-specific 
    (5) In the grassland communities where Holocarpha macradenia 
occurs, invasive, nonnative species such as French broom, eucalyptus, 
acacia, Harding grass, bromes, artichoke thistle, and bristly ox-tongue 
and other species need to be actively managed to reduce competition and 
maintain the open habitat that H. macradenia needs.
    (6) Certain areas where Holocarpha macradenia occurs may need to be 
fenced to protect them from accidental or intentional trampling by 
humans and livestock, and to facilitate management of the habitat 
through intentional grazing or other means.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary 
constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and 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 germination, or seed dispersal; and 
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of 
the historic geographic and ecological distributions of a species.
    Based on our knowledge to date, the primary constituent elements 
for H. macradenia consist of, but are not limited to:
    (1) Soils associated with coastal terrace prairies, including the 
Watsonville, Tierra, Elkhorn, Santa Inez, and Pinto series.
    (2) Plant communities that support associated species, including 
native grasses such as Nassella sp. (needlegrass) and Danthonia 
californica (California oatgrass); native herbaceous species such as 
members of the genus Hemizonia (other tarplants), Perideridia gairdneri 
(Gairdner's yampah), Plagiobothrys diffusus (San Francisco popcorn 
flower), and Trifolium buckwestiorum (Santa Cruz clover); and
    (3) Physical processes, particularly soils and hydrologic 
processes, that maintain the soil structure and hydrology that produce 
the seasonally saturated soils characteristic of Holocarpha macradenia 

Site Selection

    We identified critical habitat areas essential for the conservation 
of Holocarpha macradenia in the three primary areas where it is known 
to occur: In the East Bay (Contra Costa County); in the Santa Cruz-
Soquel area (Santa Cruz County); and the Watsonville area (Santa Cruz 
and Monterey Counties). Historic locations for which there are no 
recent records of occupancy (within the last 20 years) were not 
proposed for designation, including those previously found in Marin and 
Alameda Counties that have become urbanized over the last 100 years; 
locations to the north of Santa Cruz where H. macradenia has not been 
seen in over 50 years; and locations around the Watsonville area that 
have been destroyed by fill, agricultural activities, and parking lot 
construction. In the East Bay, only one of the eight sites that support 
an introduced population of H. macradenia in Wildcat Regional Park is 
being proposed for designation because it is the largest seeded 
population that represents the genetic variability of the northern 
portion of the species' range. Several commenters suggested that 
additional critical habitat should have been proposed in the northern 
portion of the species range (East Bay area). While we agree that 
additional areas in the northern portion of its range may be required 
for the long term conservation of the species, the information 
necessary to propose other areas was not available to us at the time 
the proposal was prepared, and is therefore not included here. However, 
additional habitat outside the designated areas may later be discovered 
to be critical for the recovery of the species, and may be included in 
recovery activities for the species in the future.
    Due to the historic loss of the habitat that supported Holocarpha 
macradenia, we believe that future conservation and recovery of this 
species depends not only on protecting it in the limited areas that it 
currently occupies, but also on providing the opportunity to expand its 
distribution by protecting currently unoccupied habitat within its 
historic range. Protection of each of the locations where H. macradenia 
occurs is essential for the conservation of this species to reduce the 
risks of extirpation that is inherent in having so few extant 
populations, especially when so many of the populations comprise so few 
individuals. The slight variations in elevation, coastal influence, and 
soil types found among the critical habitat units are important in 
shaping the phenological (e.g., timing of reproduction), morphological 
(i.e., physical structure and form), and physiological adaptations of 
plant populations to specific environments (Clausen et al. 1948, 
Clausen 1951). For example, elevation and distance from the coast 
influence precipitation and average daily temperatures to which a 
population is subjected, while soil type can influence nutrient and 
water availability. The heritable local adaptations that develop as a 
result of such environmental variations reflect genetic variability 
within the species. Preserving this genetic variability in endemic 
species that allows for adaptation to changing climatic and other 
environmental influences is important to improve the likelihood that 
the species will be able to survive and adapt to such future 
environmental changes (Falk 1992).
    In addition to maintaining existing populations, the persistence of 
the species requires surrounding habitat needed to maintain the 
ecological processes that allow the populations and the primary 
constituent elements to persist. These ecological processes include the 
expansion and shifting of populations over time, the maintenance of 
pollinator interactions that maintain the gene flow between populations 
over time, and the maintenance of seed dispersal vectors that serve to 
distribute seed between existing sites as well as to new sites. The 
ability to maintain disturbance factors (for example, grazing, mowing, 
or fire disturbance) that maintain the openness of vegetation that the 
species requires for successful germination is also critical to the 
long term persistence of the species. Threats to the remaining habitat 
of H. macradenia include: Urban development and its associated impacts, 
such as habitat fragmentation, recreational use, and changes in grazing 
regimes that may have facilitated the

[[Page 63979]]

increase in nonnative plant species that compete with H. macradenia. 
The areas we are designating as critical habitat provide some or all of 
the habitat components essential for the conservation of H. macradenia. 
Given the species' need for a reduced litter layer and canopy height 
and the threat of competition from nonnative species, we believe that 
these areas require special management considerations or protection.
    In our delineation of the critical habitat units, we believe it is 
important to designate all areas that currently support native 
populations of Holocarpha macradenia because the number of populations 
that have been extirpated and the reduction in range that the species 
has undergone place a great importance on the conservation of all the 
known remaining sites. In the area just west of Watsonville, a number 
of populations that are in close geographic proximity to each other are 
included in the same unit because the distribution of H. macradenia in 
this area was probably once greater, prior to fragmentation of 
populations into smaller units. Maintaining the connectivity between 
these populations through gene flow and seed dispersal is important for 
maintaining the genetic variability that will contribute to the long 
term persistence of the species.
    With regard to the experimental seeded populations of H. 
macradenia, we acknowledge the importance these seeding trials have 
offered with respect to understanding the range of habitat 
characteristics that H. macradenia may tolerate. However, based on 
current information, we believe that only the area that supports the 
Mezue population is essential to the recovery of the species. This 
population is the best expression of the genetic variability that once 
occurred in the northern end of the range of the species; native stands 
in this portion of the range have now been extirpated.
    Even though we did not have sufficient information to propose sites 
other than where populations are currently known to occur, we do not 
imply that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be 
required for recovery of the species. Areas that support newly 
discovered populations in the future, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 
the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, as determined on 
the basis of the best available information at the time an action is 
being proposed.


    The critical habitat units were delineated by creating data layers 
in a geographic information system (GIS) format of the areas where 
Holocarpha macradenia is known to occur, using information from the 
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2001), aerial photos, 
recent biological surveys and reports, and discussions with botanical 
experts. These data layers were created on a base of USGS 7.5' 
quadrangles obtained from the State of California's Stephen P. Teale 
Data Center. Critical habitat units were mapped using UTM coordinates. 
Some units were mapped with a greater precision than others, based on 
the available information, and the size of the unit.
    In selecting areas of designated critical habitat we made an effort 
to avoid developed areas, such as housing developments, that are 
unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements or otherwise 
contribute to the conservation of Holocarpha macradenia. However, we 
could not map critical habitat in sufficient detail to exclude all 
developed areas, or other lands unlikely to contain the primary 
constituent elements essential for the conservation of H. macradenia. 
Areas within the boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, 
roads, parking lots, railroads, airport runways and other paved areas, 
lawns, and other urban landscaped areas will not contain any of the 
primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to these areas, 
therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they 
affect the species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent 
critical habitat.

Critical Habitat Designation

    The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best 
assessment at this time of the areas needed for the conservation and 
recovery of Holocarpha macradenia. Critical habitat being designated 
for H. macradenia consists of 11 units that currently sustain the 
species. The geographic range that H. macradenia occupies has been 
reduced to so few sites that the species may well be threatened with 
extinction in the near future, particularly if appropriate management 
of the remaining habitat is not employed. Protection of this designated 
critical habitat is essential for the conservation of the species 
because it would reduce the threat to the species from future 
population extirpations due to stochastic events. Further, because this 
species cannot self-pollinate, maintenance of adequate gene flow 
between populations, which is critical to producing the genetic 
variability necessary for the species' survival and recovery, is 
dependent on the retention of lands containing suitable habitat in 
sufficiently close proximity to existing populations to allow for their 
expansion as well as for gene flow to other nearby populations. The 
areas being designated as critical habitat are within the three primary 
areas that currently support H. macradenia and include the appropriate 
coastal terrace prairie habitat necessary for the species. We are 
designating approximately 2,902 ha (1,174 ac) of land as critical 
habitat for H. macradenia.
    The approximate areas of designated critical habitat by land 
ownership are shown in Table 1. Lands proposed are under private, 
county, State, and Federal jurisdiction.

    Table 1.--Approximate Areas, Given in Hectares (ha) and Acres (ac) \1\ of Critical Habitat for Holocarpha
                                          macradenia by Land Ownership
           Unit name                  State           Private       County/City       Federal          Total
A. Mezue.......................  0 ha             0 ha            50 ha           0 ha            50 ha
                                 (0 ac)           (0 ac)          (130 ac)        (0 ac)          (130 ac)
B. Graham Hill.................  0 ha             12 ha           0 ha            0 ha            12 ha
                                 (0 ac)           (30 ac)         (0 ac)          (0 ac)          (30 ac)
C. De Laveaga..................  2 ha             0 ha            0 ha            0 ha            2 ha
                                 (5 ac)           (0 ac)          (0 ac)          (0 ac)          (5 ac)
D. Arana Gulch.................  0 ha             0 ha            26 ha           0 ha            26 ha
                                 (0 ac)           (0 ac)          (65 ac)         (0 ac)          (65 ac)

[[Page 63980]]

E. Twin Lakes..................  11 ha            0 ha            0 ha            0 ha            11 ha
                                 (26 ac)          (0 ac)          (0 ac)          (0 ac)          (26 ac)
F. Rodeo Gulch.................  0 ha             11 ha           0 ha            0 ha            11 ha
                                 (0 ac)           (26 ac)         (0 ac)          (0 ac)          (26 ac)
G. Soquel......................  0 ha             18 ha           22 ha           0 ha            40 ha
                                 (0 ac)           (45 ac)         (55 ac)         (0 ac)          (100 ac)
H. Porter Gulch................  0 ha             14 ha           0 ha            0 ha            14 ha
                                 (0 ac)           (35 ac)         (0 ac)          (0 ac)          (35 ac)
I. Watsonville.................  23 ha            340 ha          125ha           0 ha            488 ha
                                 (56 ac)          (840 ac)        (309 ac)        (0 ac)          (1,205 ac)
J. Casserly....................  0 ha             450 ha          0 ha            0 ha            450 ha
                                 (0 ac)           (1,110 ac)      (0 ac)          (0 ac)          (1,110 ac)
K. Elkhorn.....................  0 ha             70 ha           0 ha            0 ha            70 ha
                                 (0 ac)           (170 ac)        (0 ac)          (0 ac)          (170 ac)
    Total......................  27 ha            920 ha          230 ha          0 ha            1,175 ha
                                 (66 ac)          (2,270 ac)      (570 ac)        (0 ac)          (2,902 ac)
\1\ Approximate acres from GIS map data have been converted to hectares (1 ha = 2.47 ac). Based on the level of
  imprecision of mapping, approximate hectares and acres greater than or equal to 30 (= 30) have been
  rounded to the nearest 5; totals are sums of columns and rows.

    A brief description of each critical habitat unit is given below:

East Bay Area Unit

Unit A: Mezue

    Unit A consists of grassland habitat on sloping alluvial deposits 
from old marine terraces within Wildcat Regional Park in Contra Costa 
County. This entire unit of approximately 50 ha (130 ac) is on lands 
managed by the EBRPD. Management activities at this site include 
controlled grazing, removal of invasive artichoke thistle, and annual 
population monitoring (EBRPD 1992, 2001). Of the 22 sites that were 
used as sites to introduce Holocarpha macradenia seed in the East Bay 
region between 1982 and 1986, this population has been the only one 
that has consistently supported a large population of H. macradenia. In 
the year 2000, this population supported over 17,000 individuals (CDFG 
2000). Although this population is an introduced population, this unit 
is essential to the survival and conservation of the species because 
this population represents the genetic variability in the northernmost 
portion of the plant's range and is important for the expansion of the 
existing population. In recognition of the conservation value of this 
population, the Service is contributing funding toward nonnative 
species removal at this site (Service 2002).

Santa Cruz--Soquel Area Units

Unit B: Graham Hill

    Unit B consists of grasslands on a relatively flat coastal terrace 
prairie on the west side of Graham Hill Road, approximately 1 mile 
north of the City of Santa Cruz in Santa Cruz County. This entire unit 
of approximately 12 ha (30 ac) is on privately owned lands. The unit 
includes a 7-ha (17-ac) area that has been set aside through a 
conservation easement to the County of Santa Cruz for conservation of 
coastal prairie habitat and Holocarpha macradenia as mitigation for an 
adjacent development that comprises 52 residences and associated 
amenities. The population has been fenced and nonnative species have 
been removed; however, efforts to enhance the population, as called for 
in a management plan (Environmental Science Associates 1996), have not 
yet been initiated. In 1994, this population numbered 12,000 
individuals; by 1998, 675 individuals were counted; and in 2001, 
approximately 550 individuals were counted (V. Haley, consultant, 
Felton, California, pers. comm., 2001). This unit is important because 
it currently supports a population of H. macradenia and because it 
represents the western limit of the cluster of populations that are 
found on the northern end of Monterey Bay. This unit, along with the 
Fairway Unit, occurs at the highest elevation of the native populations 
(122 m (400 ft)) and consequently the farthest away from the influence 
of the coastal climate. Preserving the genetic variability within the 
species that has allowed it to adapt to these different environmental 
conditions is essential for the long-term survival and conservation of 
the species.

Unit C: De Laveaga

    Unit C consists of grasslands on a relatively flat coastal terrace 
prairie within De Laveaga Park just north of the City of Santa Cruz in 
Santa Cruz County. This entire unit of approximately 2 ha (5 ac) is on 
State lands managed by the CANG and supported by Federal funds from the 
National Guard Bureau. The CANG does not anticipate undertaking any new 
military activities on this parcel beyond its current use as an 
assembly point for monthly drills and as storage for equipment. In 
2001, a maintenance crew from the adjacent city-owned golf course 
spread wood chips from a felled tree over half the population. The CANG 
has initiated management actions to restore and enhance habitat for H. 
macradenia, including removal of the wood chips and chunks of 
eucalyptus logs. In addition, the CANG has initiated development of an 
INRMP (CANG 2002); if the final plan meets the criteria outlined 
earlier in our response to comment number eight, the critical habitat 
designation may be removed from this unit in the future. This unit is 
essential because it currently supports a population of H. macradenia 
and because it is one of only seven populations in the cluster of 
populations that are found on the northern end of Monterey Bay. Despite 
its small size, this unit is essential because it is located between 
the Graham Hill, Arana Gulch, and Rodeo Gulch Units, and is important 
for maintaining connectivity between these other units.

Unit D: Arana Gulch

    Unit D consists of grasslands on a relatively flat coastal terrace 
prairie within an open space preserve just

[[Page 63981]]

north of Woods Lagoon in the City of Santa Cruz. This entire unit of 
approximately 26 ha (65 ac) is on lands owned and managed by the City 
of Santa Cruz. It is bounded on the west, east, and north sides by 
existing development and on the south side by the Santa Cruz Harbor. 
Huge population fluctuations have occurred on this site, ranging from 
100,000 individuals in the late 1980s when the site was being grazed by 
cattle, to no plants in 1995 (K. Lyons, in litt., 2001). The City 
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the CDFG in 1997 to 
manage Holocarpha macradenia, which includes utilizing a variety of 
management techniques to enhance the population. As of 1998, 
individuals numbered approximately 12,820; in 2000, they numbered 234; 
and in 2002 they numbered approximately 10,000 (K. Lyons, in litt., 
2001; Seals 2002). This unit is essential because it currently supports 
a population of H. macradenia and because it is one of only seven 
populations in the cluster of populations that are found on the 
northern end of Monterey Bay. This unit and the Twin Lakes Unit occur 
at the lowest elevation of the native populations in the northern 
Monterey Bay area (12 to 18 m (40 to 60 ft)) and are consequently the 
closest to the influence of the coastal climate. Moreover, these two 
units are within one-half mile of each other and therefore could retain 
connectivity between them. It is also essential for the recovery of the 
species because current management by the City of Santa Cruz has 
allowed this site to support the third largest standing native 
population of tarplant. It therefore contributes significantly to the 
seed bank reserve for the species and is large enough to support 
management activities that may be necessary to maintain the population 
at this site.

Unit E: Twin Lakes

    Unit E consists of grasslands on relatively flat coastal terrace 
prairie just north of Schwan Lagoon within the City of Santa Cruz. This 
entire unit of approximately 11 ha (26 ac) is on lands owned by the 
CDPR within Twin Lakes State Park. It is bounded on the west, north, 
and east sides by existing development, and on the south side by Schwan 
Lagoon. Since 1997, CDPR has been actively managing Holocarpha 
macradenia habitat by removing invasive, nonnative species and 
attempting various methods of enhancing the population (Service 2000). 
CDPR has also funded research on H. macradenia seed bank dynamics 
(Bainbridge 1999). This population has ranged in size from 120 
individuals in 1986 to 21 individuals in 2002 (Hyland 2002). This unit 
is essential because it currently supports a population of H. 
macradenia and because it is one of only seven populations in the 
cluster of populations that are found on the northern end of Monterey 
Bay. As with the Arana Gulch Unit, it occurs at the lowest elevation of 
the native populations in the northern Monterey Bay area (12 to 18 m 
(40 to 60 ft)) and consequently the closest to the influence of the 
coastal climate. Moreover, the two units are within one-half mile of 
each other and therefore could retain connectivity between them.

Unit F: Rodeo Gulch

    Unit F consists of sloping alluvial deposits and adjacent 
relatively flat coastal terrace prairie that straddles the Arana Gulch 
and Rodeo Gulch drainages north of the community of Soquel in Santa 
Cruz County. It is bounded on the north, east, and south sides by 
existing development; the western side is bounded by lands that have 
not been developed. This entire unit of approximately 11 ha (26 ac) is 
on privately owned lands. This unit includes a parcel that has recently 
been proposed for a housing development known as Santa Cruz Gardens 
Subdivision Unit 12 (Denise Duffy and Associates 2001). This parcel was 
previously set aside in a ``temporary open space easement'' as 
mitigation for destroying a portion of the H. macradenia population by 
an earlier phase of the development in 1986 (Service 2000). The current 
development proposal calls for setting aside approximately 23 ha (56 
ac) for conservation and recreation purposes, and includes much of the 
habitat that supports H. macradenia. Salvage of soil and an H. 
macradenia seed bank is being proposed for another portion of the 
project site that will be impacted by development (Lyons 1999). This 
population numbered approximately 60 individuals in 1993; none have 
been observed since then (CNDDB 2001). However, a seed bank likely 
persists at this site. This unit is essential because of the likely 
presence of an H. macradenia seed bank and because it is one of only 
seven populations in the cluster of populations that are found on the 
northern end of Monterey Bay. In addition to the seed bank for this 
population, this unit supports grassland habitat that provides for 
future expansion of the population. Also, it is within one-half mile of 
the Soquel Unit, and therefore could retain connectivity between the 

Unit G: Soquel

    Unit G consists of grasslands on sloping alluvial deposits and 
adjacent relatively flat coastal terrace prairie that straddles the 
Rodeo Gulch and Soquel Creek drainages north of the community of Soquel 
in Santa Cruz County. It is bounded on the north, east, and south sides 
by existing development; the western side is bounded by lands that have 
not been developed. Approximately 22 ha (55 ac) of this 40-ha (100-ac) 
unit is within Anna Jean Cummings Regional Park (also known as O'Neill 
Ranch), which is managed by the County of Santa Cruz. The remaining 
portion is privately owned. On the park lands, the population has been 
fenced, and portions of the habitat for the plant are being mowed and 
raked in accordance with a management plan (Ecosystems West 1999; Joe 
Rigney, consultant, pers. comm., 2001). The County of Santa Cruz 
approved a housing development for the privately-owned parcel 
(previously known as Tan, but now called Seacrest) in 1997. The 
development included an approximately 4-ha (10-ac) parcel to be set 
aside for conservation and a plan to manage the habitat for Holocarpha 
macradenia. Although part of the same population, the CNDDB has 
maintained two separate entries (O'Neill and Tan) to reflect the two 
land ownerships. The total number of individuals in the combined 
population has never been larger than 200 individuals, with the private 
parcel supporting only a portion of those (CNDDB 2001). To date, 
management activities have not resulted in enhancing the population of 
the species on either parcel. This unit is essential because it has 
recently supported a population of H. macradenia and the seed bank is 
still present, and because it is one of only seven populations in the 
cluster of populations that are found on the northern end of Monterey 
Bay. In addition to the seed bank for this population, this unit 
supports grassland habitat that provides for future expansion of the 
population. Also, it is within one-half mile of the Rodeo Gulch Unit, 
and therefore could retain connectivity between the units. Moreover, 
the acreage in Anna Jean Cummings Park represents one of the best 
remaining fragments of habitat on which to attempt recovery activities 
for H. macradenia, as it has been subject to fewer impacts than other 

Unit H: Porter Gulch

    Unit H consists of grasslands on gently sloping alluvial deposits 
derived from a coastal terrace that straddles the

[[Page 63982]]

Bates Creek and Porter Gulch drainages north of the community of Soquel 
in Santa Cruz County. It is bounded on all sides by undeveloped lands. 
This entire unit of approximately 14 ha (35 ac) is on privately owned 
lands. The population of Holocarpha macradenia at this site includes an 
approximately 12-ha (30-ac) parcel that was proposed for a lot split. A 
management plan for the species was developed as part of the proposed 
split (Greening Associates 1995); however, the management plan for H. 
macradenia has not been fully implemented. This unit also includes 
adjacent coastal prairie habitat, of which approximately 4 ha (9 ac) 
was deeded in 2001 to the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County for 
preservation. In 1993, the population of H. macradenia numbered 
approximately 1,500 individuals (CNDDB 2001). The population numbered 
only several hundred individuals in 2001 when the site was observed to 
support a large cover of rattlesnake grass that likely competed with H. 
macradenia (C. Rutherford, Service, pers. obs., 2001). This unit is 
essential because it currently supports a population of H. macradenia, 
and because it is one of only seven populations in the cluster of 
populations that are found on the northern end of Monterey Bay. Also, 
along with the Graham Hill Unit, this one occurs at the highest 
elevation of the native populations (122 m (400 ft)) and consequently 
the farthest away from the influence of the coastal climate. Preserving 
the genetic variability within the species that has allowed it to adapt 
to these slightly different environmental conditions is essential for 
the long-term survival and conservation of the species.

Watsonville Area Units

Unit I: Watsonville

    Unit I consists of grasslands on alluvial fans and marine terraces 
west of the City of Watsonville in Santa Cruz County; during the 
remapping for the final rule we removed most of the low-lying drainages 
that interdigitate with the grasslands. The northern and eastern 
boundaries reach toward the Corralitos Creek drainage except where it 
runs up against existing development. The southeastern and southern 
boundary is formed by the Pajaro River drainage. The western boundary 
is formed by the Harkins Slough drainage and then generally follows 
Buena Vista Drive north until it intersects with the northern perimeter 
of the Watsonville Airport (Airport). This unit excludes paved areas of 
the Airport, but includes the unpaved portions surrounding the runways. 
This approximately 488-ha (1,205-ac) unit is partly owned by the City 
of Watsonville (the Airport and High School) (approximately 125 ha (309 
ac)); a small portion is under easement to CalTrans (approximately 8 ha 
(19 ac)); a portion is designated as a Reserve by the CDFG 
(approximately 15 ha (37 ac)); and the remaining portion is privately 
owned (approximately 340 ha (840 ac)). This unit overlaps in part with 
an area that is targeted for regional conservation planning by the 
CDFG. Through its Conceptual Area Protection Plan process, CDFG, along 
with other Federal, State, and local agencies and organizations, are 
identifying opportunities to preserve sensitive species and habitats, 
including the Harkins Slough and Watsonville Slough wetlands and 
adjacent habitats (J. DeWald, in litt., 2001). This unit is essential 
because it currently supports multiple populations of H. macradenia 
including the populations known from the Airport, Harkins Slough, Apple 
Hill, and Bay Breeze (see Background for additional population 
information). This unit also supports grassland habitat that is 
important for the expansion of existing populations and for maintaining 
connectivity between the populations. It is also one of only three 
areas that support populations of H. macradenia that are found in the 
central Monterey Bay area and in the southern end of the range of the 
species. Preserving any genetic variability within the species that has 
allowed it to adapt to these slightly different environmental 
conditions is essential for the long-term survival and conservation of 
the species. Just prior to publication of this final rule, we were 
informed that construction of the Millennium High School had been 
initiated. Therefore, with this unit description, we are removing the 
32 acres that are being converted to building, paved surfaces, and 
playing fields because these areas will no longer support the primary 
constituent elements. Note, however, that the 32 acres have not been 
removed from the map depicting this unit; nor have they been subtracted 
from the unit total and overall total number of acres being designated 
as critical habitat for the species.

Unit J: Casserly

    Unit J consists of open patches of grassland interspersed with golf 
course greens, cattle pastures, croplands, and orchards. This entire 
unit of approximately 450 ha (1,110 ac) consists of privately owned 
lands. It is the unit for which the least amount of information is 
available, particularly with respect to existing land uses. The Spring 
Hills population of Holocarpha macradenia occurs within this unit. The 
population numbered approximately 4,000 individuals in 1990 (CNDDB 
2001); the population was observed in 1995 and 2001, though not 
counted. The population was fragmented by development of the Spring 
Hills Golf Course, and now consists of five separate occurrences. This 
unit is essential because it currently supports multiple occurrences of 
H. macradenia that are found in the Monterey Bay area, including the 
five populations known from the Spring Hills Golf Course. This unit 
also supports grassland habitat that is important for the expansion of 
existing populations, and for maintaining connectivity between these 
populations. It is one of only three areas that support populations of 
H. macradenia that are found in the central Monterey Bay area and in 
the southern end of the range of the species as well as the most inland 
distribution of the species. Preserving genetic variability within the 
species that has allowed it to adapt to these slightly different 
environmental conditions is essential for the long-term survival and 
conservation of the species.

Unit K: Elkhorn

    Unit K consists of sloping terrain on the edges of a coastal 
terrace, just south of the Pajaro River in northern Monterey County. 
The population of Holocarpha macradenia that is found here is unusual 
in that it occurs on a canyon bottom; it is also the only population 
that occurs primarily on the Santa Ynez soil series. This unit of 
approximately 70 ha (170 ac) is privately owned by the Elkhorn Slough 
Foundation (Foundation). The CDFG holds a conservation easement on an 
approximately 16-ha (40-ac) parcel that overlaps in part with this 
unit; the Foundation is managing the parcel for its biological values. 
Multiple Federal, State, and local government and private agencies have 
recently developed a conservation plan for the Elkhorn Slough 
watershed; this critical habitat unit is within the 18,210-ha (45,000-
ac) area on which the conservation plan focuses (Scharffenberger 1999). 
In 1993, the population at this site comprised approximately 3,200 
individuals (CNDDB 2001). Salix spp. (willow) planting that has been 
undertaken as part of a riparian enhancement project may increase 
shading on an adjacent population of H. macradenia, leading to a 
reduction in the size of that population (Holl, in litt., 2002). This 
unit is essential because it currently supports a population of H. 
macradenia and because it is one of only three areas that support 
populations of H.

[[Page 63983]]

macradenia that are found on the central Monterey Bay area and in the 
southern end of the range of the species. Also, this is the only 
population that occurs primarily on the Santa Ynez soil series. 
Preserving any genetic variability within the species that has allowed 
it to adapt to these slightly different environmental conditions is 
essential for the long-term survival and conservation of the species. 
In addition to the current population, this unit comprises grassland 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the population.

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, permit, or carry 
out do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat occurs when a Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters critical habitat to the extent it 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the 
conservation of the species. Individuals, organizations, States, local 
governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected by the 
designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal 
lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or 
involve Federal funding.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is 
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened, and with respect to its 
critical habitat, if any is designated or proposed. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with 
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a species proposed for listing, or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide 
conservation recommendations to assist action agencies in eliminating 
conflicts that may be caused by their proposed action(s). The 
conservation measures in a conference report are advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the 
Federal action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion 
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was 
listed or critical habitat designated. We may adopt the formal 
conference report as the biological opinion when the species is listed 
or critical habitat designated, if no substantial new information or 
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (50 CFR 
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions 
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. Through this consultation the 
Federal action agency would ensure that the permitted actions do not 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
    If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in 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 destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight 
project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the 
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions under certain 
circumstances, including instances where critical habitat is 
subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement, or control has been retained, or it is 
authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request 
reinitiation of consultation or conference with us on actions for which 
formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect 
designated critical habitat, or adversely modify or destroy proposed 
critical habitat.
    Activities that may affect Holocarpha macradenia or its critical 
habitat will require consultation under section 7 of the Act. 
Activities on private or State lands, that require a permit from a 
Federal agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et 
seq.), a section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act permit from the Service, or any 
other activity requiring a Federal action (i.e., funding or 
authorization from the Federal Highway Administration or 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 non-Federal land that are not 
federally funded, authorized, or permitted do not require section 7 
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 ensures that actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or 
adversely modify the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely 
to ``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that 
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and 
recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical 
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical 
habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed species.
    The relationship between a species' survival and its recovery has 
been a source of confusion to some in the past. We believe that a 
species' ability to recover depends on its ability to survive into the 
future when its recovery can be achieved; thus, the concepts of long-
term survival and recovery are intricately linked. However, in the 
March 15, 2001, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 
245 F.3d 434) regarding our previous not prudent finding, the Court 
found our definition of destruction or adverse modification as 
currently contained in 50 CFR 402.02 to be invalid. In response to this 
decision, we are reviewing the regulatory definition of adverse 
modification in relation to the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to evaluate briefly and 
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely 
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. 
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat would 
be those that alter the primary constituent elements to the extent that 
the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of 

[[Page 63984]]

macradenia is appreciably reduced. We note that such activities may 
also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat for Holocarpha macradenia include, but are not limited 
    (1) Activities that alter watershed characteristics in ways that 
would appreciably alter or reduce the quality or quantity of surface 
and subsurface flow of water needed to maintain the coastal terrace 
prairie habitat. Such activities adverse to Holocarpha macradenia could 
include, but are not limited to, maintaining an unnatural fire regime 
either through fire suppression or prescribed fires that are too 
frequent or poorly-timed; residential and commercial development, 
including road building and golf course installations; agricultural 
activities, including orchardry, viticulture, row crops, and livestock 
grazing; and vegetation manipulation such as harvesting firewood in the 
watershed upslope from H. macradenia; and
    (2) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy coastal terrace 
prairie habitat, including but not limited to livestock grazing, 
clearing, discing, introducing or encouraging the spread of nonnative 
species, and heavy recreational use. As noted earlier in the rule, some 
form of grazing may be helpful if it maintains open habitat and 
decreases competition from other species.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the 
Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section). Requests for copies of the regulations on 
listed wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be 
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Regional 
Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (503/231-6131, FAX 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)

    Subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act allows us to exclude areas from the 
critical habitat designation where the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not result in 
extinction of the species. We received requests for exclusion from 
critical habitat designation from the following parties: California 
Army National Guard, Pajaro Unified School District, City of 
Watsonville, and California Department of Transportation; our response 
to these requests are contained under Comment Nos. 8, 9, and 10 in the 
Response to Comments section earlier in this rule. As discussed in this 
final rule and in our economic analysis for this rulemaking, we have 
determined that the adverse economic effects resulting from this 
critical habitat designation will be minimal. We believe all the areas 
included in this designation, including those for which exclusions were 
requested, are essential for the conservation of Holocarpha macradenia 
because native populations have already been extirpated from the 
northern two-thirds of its range, and the only remaining expression of 
the northern gene stock persists as introduced populations in the 
middle portion of its range (East Bay area). This designation would 
protect the remaining existing populations, adjacent suitable areas 
needed for the expansion of populations and would maintain connectivity 
between populations through pollinator activity and seed dispersal 
mechanisms, and the ecological functions upon which the species 
depends. The role that these lands play in the long term persistence of 
the species is also discussed under the Site Selection and Critical 
Habitat Designation sections earlier in this rule. We believe that the 
designation of the lands in this final rule as critical habitat 
outweigh the benefits of their exclusion from being designated as 
critical habitat. Consequently, none of the proposed lands have been 
excluded from the designation based on economic impacts or other 
relevant factors pursuant to section 4(b)(2).

Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans and Other Planning Efforts

    Currently, there are no habitat conservation plans (HCPs) that 
include Holocarpha macradenia as a covered species. Section 10(a)(1)(B) 
of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for the take of listed 
species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. An incidental take 
permit application must be supported by an HCP that identifies 
conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement for the 
species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the permitted take. 
Although ``take'' of listed plants is not prohibited by the Act, listed 
plant species may also be covered in an HCP for wildlife species. In 
most instances we believe that the benefits of excluding HCPs from 
critical habitat designations will outweigh the benefits of including 
them. In the event that future HCPs covering H. macradenia are 
developed within the boundaries of the designated critical habitat, we 
will work with applicants to ensure that the HCPs provide for 
protection and management of habitat areas essential for the 
conservation of this species. This will be accomplished by either 
directing development and habitat modification to nonessential areas, 
or appropriately modifying activities within essential habitat areas so 
that such activities will not adversely modify the primary constituent 
elements. The HCP development process would provide an opportunity for 
more intensive data collection and analysis regarding the use of 
particular habitat areas by H. macradenia. The process would also 
enable us to conduct detailed evaluations of the importance of such 
lands to the long-term survival of the species in the context of 
constructing a biologically configured system of interlinked habitat 
    We will provide technical assistance and work closely with 
applicants throughout the development of any future HCPs to identify 
lands essential for the long-term conservation of H. macradenia and 
appropriate management for those lands. Furthermore, we will complete 
intra-Service consultation on our issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) 
permits for these HCPs to ensure permit issuance will not destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial 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 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, a draft economic analysis was conducted to estimate the 
potential economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was 
made available for review on May 7, 2002 (67 FR 30642). We accepted 
comments on the draft analysis until this second public comment period 
closed on June 6, 2002.
    Our economic analysis evaluated the potential future effects 
associated with the listing of H. macradenia as a threatened species 
under the Act, as well as any potential effect of the critical habitat 
designation above and beyond those regulatory and economic impacts 
associated with listing. To

[[Page 63985]]

quantify the proportion of total potential economic impacts 
attributable to the critical habitat designation, the analysis 
evaluated a ``without section 7'' baseline and compared it to a ``with 
section 7'' scenario. The ``without section 7'' baseline represents the 
level of protection currently afforded to the species under the Act, 
absent section 7 protective measures, and includes protections afforded 
by other Federal, State, and local laws such as the California 
Environmental Quality Act. The ``with section 7'' scenario identifies 
land-use activities likely to involve a Federal nexus that may affect 
the species or its designated critical habitat, which accordingly may 
trigger future consultations under section 7 of the Act.
    Upon identifying section 7 impacts, the analysis proceeds to 
consider the subset of impacts that can be attributed exclusively to 
the critical habitat designation. The upper-bound estimate includes 
both jeopardy and critical habitat impacts. The subset of section 7 
impacts likely to be affected solely by the designation of critical 
habitat represents the lower-bound estimate of the analysis. The 
categories of potential costs considered in the analysis included the 
costs associated with: (1) Conducting section 7 consultations 
associated with the listing or with the designation of critical 
habitat, including reinitiated consultations and technical assistance; 
(2) modifications to projects, activities, or land uses resulting from 
the section 7 consultations; (3) uncertainty and public perceptions 
resulting from the designation of critical habitat; and (4) potential 
offsetting beneficial costs associated with critical habitat including 
educational benefits.
    Our economic analysis recognizes that there may be costs from 
delays associated with reinitiating completed consultations after the 
critical habitat designation is made final. There may also be economic 
effects due to the reaction of the real estate market to critical 
habitat designation, as real estate values may be lowered due to a 
perceived increase in the regulatory burden. However, we believe these 
impacts will be short-term.
    Based on our analysis, we have concluded that the designation of 
critical habitat would not result in a significant economic impact, and 
estimate the potential economic effects over a 10-year period would be 
$338,000. Costs to Federal agencies are expected to be approximately 
$62,000, primarily resulting from consultations and project 
modifications in the Watsonville Unit. Costs to State agencies are 
expected to be approximately $57,000, primarily resulting from 
consultations and project modifications by CalTrans in the Watsonville 
Unit. Costs to local agencies are expected to be approximately 
$179,000, primarily resulting from consultations and project 
modifications in the Mezue and Watsonville Units. Costs to private 
landowners are expected to be approximately $32,000, primarily 
resulting from consultations and modifications within the Rodeo Gulch 
and Watsonville Units. These estimates are based on the existing 
consultation history with agencies in this area and increased public 
awareness regarding the actual impacts of critical habitat designation 
on land values. Because of Holocarpha macradenia's limited distribution 
and the small amount of available suitable habitat, it is assumed that 
most projects would be subject to consultation on their potential 
impacts to the species, regardless of this critical habitat 
designation. Therefore, most potential costs are attributable co-
extensively to the listing of H. macradenia. The designation of 
critical habitat is not expected to result in any significant 
additional regulatory protection..
    Following the close of the comment period on the draft Economic 
Analysis, a final addendum was completed which incorporated public 
comments on the draft analysis. The values presented above may be an 
overestimate of the potential economic effects of the designation 
because the final designation has been reduced to encompass 1,175 ha 
(2,902 ac) versus the 1,360 ha (3,360 ac) proposed as critical habitat, 
a difference of 185 ha (458 ac).
    A copy of the final economic analysis and a description of the 
exclusion process with supporting documents are included in our 
administrative record and may be obtained by contacting our Ventura 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule and was reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), as OMB determined that this rule may raise novel legal or 
policy issues. The Service has prepared an economic analysis of this 
action. The Service 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. This analysis was 
made available for public comment, and we considered comments on it 
during the preparation of this rule.

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. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not 
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities. SBREFA also amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 
a certification statement. In this rule, we are certifying that the 
critical habitat designation for Holocarpha macradenia will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The following discussion explains our rationale.
    According to the Small Business Administration (http://www.sba.gov/
size/), small entities include small organizations, such as independent 
nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, 
including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer 
than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. The Small Business 
Administration defines small businesses by their principal trade. For 
example, 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 are considered by the Small Business 
Administration to be small. 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

[[Page 63986]]

economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's 
business operations.
    In determining whether this rule could ``significantly affect a 
substantial number of small entities,'' the economic analysis first 
determined whether critical habitat could potentially affect a 
``substantial number'' of small entities in counties supporting 
critical habitat areas. While SBREFA does not explicitly define 
``substantial number,'' the Small Business Administration, as well as 
other Federal agencies, have interpreted this to represent an impact on 
20 percent or greater of the number of small entities in any industry. 
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; 
though this is not one of those circumstances. In estimating the 
numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered 
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.
    Outside the existing developed areas, the projected land uses for 
the majority of the critical habitat consist of recreation, military 
storage, housing development, agriculture, cattle grazing, conservation 
lands for natural resource values, and possible airport expansion. Of 
the 11 critical habitat units identified in the proposed rule, 9 
consist of fewer than 10 parcels each, and 6 of these are only 3 
parcels or fewer. Future development is not likely in six of these nine 
units because they are primarily park lands or lands dedicated to 
conservation. Future development has already been permitted in the 
remaining three of these nine units; in these cases, we are 
coordinating with the appropriate State, county, and city agencies. We 
do not anticipate that this designation of critical habitat will result 
in any additional regulatory impacts on development projects already 
permitted in these units, and we are not aware of any Federal 
activities in these units that would require consultation or 
reinitiation of already-completed consultations for ongoing projects. 
As these three units are small (14 ha (35 ac) or less), it is unlikely 
that additional development beyond that already permitted could occur 
    The two remaining units are significantly larger in acreage and 
therefore encompass a more diverse array of possible future land uses. 
At the current time, the 450-ha (1,110-ac) Casserly Unit consists of 
lands primarily designated for noncommercial agriculture, and includes 
hobby farms, rural residences, cattle grazing, and small animal 
husbandry. It also includes two golf courses. Lands within this unit 
may be developed in the future, although we are not aware of any plans 
for development at this time. The 488-ha (1,205-ac) Watsonville Unit 
primarily consists of lands zoned for commercial agriculture, including 
row crops as well as cattle grazing. The remaining portion of the unit 
is within the city limits of the City of Watsonville. We are aware of 
several possible future projects in this unit, including airport 
expansion, a high school development, Federal Highway Administration 
projects (such as rebuilding bridges or widening freeways), and housing 
development. Future development projects in this area will also be 
affected by coastal zone permitting and other State and local planning 
and zoning requirements.
    Several of these projects may have Federal involvement, including 
the airport expansion that is being funded and permitted by the Federal 
Aviation Administration; a high school development that may require 
section 404 authorizations from the Army Corps of Engineers and an 
incidental take permit, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 
from the Service; housing developments that may require 404 
authorizations; and watershed and restoration management projects 
sponsored by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The 
requirement in section 7(a)(2) to avoid jeopardizing listed species and 
destroying or adversely modifying designated critical habitat may 
result in Federal agencies requiring certain modifications to proposed 
    Based on our experience with section 7 consultations for all listed 
species, virtually all projects--including those that, in their initial 
proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse modification 
determinations in section 7 consultations--can be implemented 
successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent 
alternative measures. These measures, by definition, must be 
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal 
agency involved in the consultation. As we have a very limited 
consultation history for Holocarpha macradenia, we can only describe 
the general kinds of actions that may be identified in future 
reasonable and prudent alternatives. These are based on our 
understanding of the needs of the species and the threats it faces, 
especially as described in the final listing rule and in this critical 
habitat designation, as well as our experience with similar listed 
plants in California. In addition, the State of California listed H. 
macradenia as an endangered species under the California Endangered 
Species Act in 1979, and we have also considered the kinds of actions 
required through State consultations for this species. The kinds of 
actions that may be included in future reasonable and prudent 
alternatives include conservation set-asides, management of competing 
nonnative species, restoration of degraded habitat, construction of 
protective fencing, and regular monitoring.
    Our economic analysis identified two categories of small entities 
that could potentially be affected by this rule: real estate developers 
and the Watsonville Municipal Airport, which is operated by the City of 
Watsonville. The Small Business Administration defines small businesses 
in this sector to be entities with $5.0 million or less in annual 
receipts. In determining whether this rule could ``significantly affect 
a substantial number of these small entities,'' the economic analysis 
first determined whether critical habitat could potentially affect a 
``substantial number.'' While SBREFA does not explicitly define 
``substantial number,'' our economic analysis has interpreted this to 
represent an impact on 20 percent or greater of the number of small 
entities in any single industry. This standard is similar to that 
adopted by other Federal agencies in their rulemaking analyses.
    To be conservative, (i.e., more likely to overstate impacts than 
understate them), the analysis assumed that a unique company will 
undertake each of the projected consultations in a given year, and so 
the number of businesses affected is equal to the total annual number 
of consultations (both formal and informal). The analysis estimated 
that, over the next ten years, the annual number of small real estate 
developers and airport industries that would be affected by section 7 
consultations would be 0.1 and 0.2, respectively. Given that the total 
number of small real estate development businesses in the area is 
approximately 286, the annual percentage of small real estate 
developers affected by this rulemaking was estimated to be 0.03 
percent, well below the 20 percent threshold considered to be 
``substantial.'' Given that the total number of small airports and 
flying fields in the state (the area of analysis due to the regional 
aspects of the airport) is approximately 115, the

[[Page 63987]]

annual percentage of small airports affected by this rulemaking was 
estimated to be 0.13 percent, also well below the 20 percent threshold 
considered to be ``substantial.'' While the economic analysis concluded 
that a substantial number of small entities would not be affected, it 
further analyzed whether any of the businesses likely to be affected 
would be ``significantly'' affected. Operating under the assumption 
that an establishment would be significantly affected if the cost of 
compliance exceeded three percent of its sales, the analysis determined 
that less than one percent of small developers and airport industries 
would, on average, experience a significant effect as a result of this 
rulemaking. Therefore, we are certifying that the designation of 
critical habitat for Holocarpha macradenia will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    As discussed above, this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 
804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This 
final designation of critical habitat: (a) Does not have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a 
major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, 
Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; 
and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Refer 
to the final economic analysis for a discussion of the effects of this 
    Proposed and final rules designating critical habitat for listed 
species are issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises will not be 
affected by the final rule designating critical habitat for this 
species. Therefore, we anticipate that this final rule will not place 
significant additional burdens on any entity.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
The primary land uses within this designated critical habitat include 
urban and agricultural development, recreation, open space, 
conservation, airport facilities, and military storage facilities. We 
are not aware of any energy-related facilities located within 
designated critical habitat. Although this rule is a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, 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, 
et seq.):
    (a) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small 
governments will be affected only to the extent that they must ensure 
that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized 
activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely modify or 
destroy designated critical habitat.
    (b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of 
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.


    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 Holocarpha macradenia in a takings 
implication assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes 
that this final rule does not pose significant takings implications.


    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we 
requested information from, and coordinated development of this 
critical habitat designation, with appropriate State resource agencies 
in California. We will continue to coordinate any future changes in the 
designation of critical habitat for the Holocarpha macradenia with the 
appropriate State agencies. Where the species is present, the 
designation of critical habitat imposes no additional restrictions to 
those currently in place, and therefore, has little incremental impact 
on State and local governments and their activities. The designation of 
critical habitat in unoccupied areas may require consultation under 
section 7 of the Act on non-Federal lands (where a Federal nexus 
occurs) that might otherwise not have occurred.
    The designations may have some benefit to these governments in that 
the areas essential to the conservation of these species are more 
clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat 
necessary to the survival of the species are identified. While 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 
consultation to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does 
not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species 
Act, as amended. The 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 Holocarpha 

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

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required. 
This rule will not impose new record-keeping 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 valid OMB Control Number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that an Environmental Assessment and/or an 
Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reason for this determination in the Federal

[[Page 63988]]

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This determination does not 
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment.

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 federally recognized 
Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. The designated critical 
habitat for Holocarpha macradenia does not contain any Tribal lands or 
lands that we have identified as impacting Tribal trust resources.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, 
is available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).


    The author of this final rule is Constance Rutherford, Ventura Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
record keeping requirements, and Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:


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

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

    2. Section Sec.  17.12(h) is amended by revising the entry for 
Holocarpha macradenia under ``FLOWERING PLANTS,'' to read as follows:

Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family            Status      When listed    Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                               habitat       rules
         Flowering Plants

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Holocarpha macradenia............  Santa Cruz tarplant.  U.S.A. (CA)........  Asteraceae--Sunflow  T                       690     17.96(a)           NA

                                                                      * * * * * * *

    3. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for 
Holocarpha macradenia in alphabetical order under Family Asteraceae to 
read as follows:

Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

Family Asteraceae: Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Contra Costa, Santa 
Cruz, and Monterey Counties, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Holocarpha macradenia are the habitat components that provide:
    (i) Soils associated with coastal terrace prairies, including the 
Watsonville, Tierra, Elkhorn, Santa Inez, and Pinto series.
    (ii) Plant communities that support associated species, including 
native grasses such as Nassella sp.(needlegrass) and Danthonia 
californica (California oatgrass); native herbaceous species such as 
members of the genus Hemizonia (other tarplants), Perideridia gairdneri 
(Gairdner's yampah), Plagiobothrys diffusus (San Francisco popcorn 
flower), and Trifolium buckwestiorum (Santa Cruz clover); and
    (iii) Physical processes, particularly soils and hydrologic 
processes, that maintain the soil structure and hydrology that produce 
the seasonally saturated soils characteristic of Holocarpha macradenia 
    (3) Critical habitat does not include existing features and 
structures, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts, railroads, airport 
runways and buildings, other paved areas, lawns, and other urban 
landscaped areas not containing one or more of the primary constituent 
    (4) Critical Habitat Map Units.
    (i) Data layers defining map units were created on a base of USGS 
7.5' quadrangles obtained from the State of California's Stephen P. 
Teale Data Center. Critical habitat units were then mapped using UTM 
    (ii) Map 1--Index map follows:

[[Page 63989]]


[[Page 63990]]

    (5) Unit A: Mezue. Contra Costa County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Richmond. Lands bounded by 
the following UTM zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 562046, 4199420; 
562047, 4199460; 562063, 4199550; 562066, 4199570; 562070, 4199600; 
562073, 4199650; 562074, 4199670; 562076, 4199690; 562076, 4199690; 
562079, 4199700; 562085, 4199710; 562100, 4199720; 562116, 4199730; 
562133, 4199740; 562149, 4199750; 562179, 4199780; 562190, 4199800; 
562230, 4199800; 562270, 4199800; 562299, 4199800; 562324, 4199800; 
562357, 4199820; 562382, 4199840; 562403, 4199860; 562466, 4199870; 
562548, 4199840; 562579, 4199820; 562616, 4199790; 562703, 4199720; 
562717, 4199700; 562723, 4199690; 562724, 4199680; 562722, 4199670; 
562712, 4199650; 562705, 4199620; 562699, 4199600; 562690, 4199580; 
562684, 4199550; 562687, 4199490; 562684, 4199440; 562683, 4199390; 
562680, 4199340; 562686, 4199300; 562629, 4199340; 562599, 4199370; 
562577, 4199410; 562556, 4199480; 562520, 4199680; 562513, 4199690; 
562500, 4199690; 562496, 4199680; 562498, 4199650; 562520, 4199510; 
562526, 4199420; 562537, 4199380; 562544, 4199340; 562567, 4199290; 
562598, 4199250; 562615, 4199240; 562621, 4199200; 562629, 4199170; 
562636, 4199120; 562637, 4199070; 562638, 4199010; 562640, 4198990; 
562645, 4198960; 562649, 4198920; 562648, 4198910; 562632, 4198880; 
562615, 4198860; 562592, 4198840; 562554, 4198820; 562530, 4198810; 
562499, 4198800; 562483, 4198800; 562465, 4198790; 562417, 4198780; 
562371, 4198800; 562314, 4198810; 562255, 4198850; 562280, 4198890; 
562291, 4198910; 562299, 4198930; 562299, 4198950; 562301, 4198970; 
562309, 4199010; 562308, 4199030; 562306, 4199040; 562293, 4199060; 
562288, 4199070; 562276, 4199090; 562271, 4199090; 562264, 4199090; 
562264, 4199090; 562258, 4199080; 562258, 4199060; 562253, 4199020; 
562251, 4198990; 562252, 4198940; 562251, 4198930; 562250, 4198930; 
562242, 4198920; 562229, 4198900; 562212, 4198880; 562188, 4198890; 
562184, 4198920; 562174, 4198960; 562163, 4199000; 562155, 4199030; 
562151, 4199050; 562146, 4199070; 562136, 4199130; 562135, 4199140; 
562132, 4199150; 562118, 4199180; 562108, 4199190; 562092, 4199220; 
562078, 4199230; 562058, 4199270; 562049, 4199280; 562045, 4199290; 
562043, 4199300; 562041, 4199310; 562041, 4199330; 562042, 4199350; 
562044, 4199360; 562046, 4199420.
    (ii) Map 2 of Unit A follows:

[[Page 63991]]


[[Page 63992]]

    (6) Unit B: Graham Hill. Santa Cruz County, California.
    (i) Unit B (Graham Hill north subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle map Felton. Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10, 
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 585905, 4096930; 585915, 4096850; 585930, 
4096130; 585930, 4096110; 585879, 4096100; 585863, 4096100; 585841, 
4096110; 585833, 4096130; 585817, 4096180; 585815, 4096210; 585819, 
4096240; 585840, 4096280; 585850, 4096320; 585837, 4096350; 585810, 
4096390; 585749, 4096430; 585721, 4096480; 585719, 4096560; 585710, 
4096710; 585724, 4096750; 585701, 4096790; 585699, 4096820; 585739, 
4096850; 585791, 4096860; 585839, 4096880; 585905, 4096930.
    (ii) Unit B (Graham Hill central subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle map Felton. Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10, 
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 585912, 4095900; 585919, 4095900; 585928, 
4095910; 585942, 4095900; 585974, 4095840; 585954, 4095830; 585939, 
4095840; 585925, 4095840; 585915, 4095850; 585912, 4095870; 585910, 
4095880; 585910, 4095890; 585912, 4095900.
    (iii) Unit B (Graham Hill south subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle map Felton. Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10, 
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 586017, 4095760; 586058, 4095680; 585931, 
4095640; 585928, 4095650; 585922, 4095670; 585920, 4095680; 585922, 
4095690; 585930, 4095710; 585937, 4095730; 585944, 4095740; 585955, 
4095740; 585976, 4095750; 586017, 4095760.
    (iv) Map 3 of Unit B follows:

[[Page 63993]]


[[Page 63994]]

    (7) Unit C: (De Laveaga). Santa Cruz County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Santa Cruz. Lands bounded by 
the following UTM zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 588446, 4094810; 
588468, 4094810; 588492, 4094800; 588510, 4094780; 588523, 4094760; 
588523, 4094740; 588522, 4094730; 588519, 4094710; 588522, 4094690; 
588522, 4094680; 588519, 4094660; 588515, 4094650; 588504, 4094630; 
588488, 4094660; 588476, 4094660; 588459, 4094620; 588445, 4094620; 
588440, 4094590; 588429, 4094590; 588417, 4094610; 588406, 4094620; 
588401, 4094640; 588399, 4094660; 588401, 4094690; 588410, 4094720; 
588416, 4094740; 588424, 4094770; 588432, 4094790; 588439, 4094810; 
588446, 4094810.
    (ii) Map 4 of Unit C follows:

[[Page 63995]]


[[Page 63996]]

    (8) Unit D: Arana Gulch. Santa Cruz County, California.
    From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Santa Cruz and Soquel. Lands 
bounded by the following UTM zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 589295, 
4093310; 589315, 4093270; 589338, 4093210; 589358, 4093170; 589399, 
4093120; 589404, 4093100; 589399, 4093030; 589401, 4092990; 589400, 
4092940; 589391, 4092900; 589386, 4092860; 589375, 4092830; 589353, 
4092780; 589340, 4092750; 589340, 4092730; 589325, 4092690; 589310, 
4092640; 589290, 4092600; 589272, 4092590; 589252, 4092570; 589238, 
4092550; 589229, 4092530; 589221, 4092500; 589195, 4092460; 589161, 
4092490; 589139, 4092530; 589120, 4092540; 589108, 4092540; 589092, 
4092510; 589057, 4092450; 589033, 4092400; 588999, 4092360; 588929, 
4092350; 588916, 4092360; 588894, 4092470; 588891, 4092560; 588890, 
4092650; 588919, 4092710; 588946, 4092730; 588980, 4092760; 589053, 
4092880; 589080, 4092950; 589119, 4093040; 589234, 4093080; 589178, 
4093270; 589181, 4093310; 589214, 4093320; 589245, 4093330; 589268, 
4093330; 589295, 4093310.
    (9) Unit E: Twin Lakes. Santa Cruz County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Soquel. Lands bounded by the 
following UTM zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 589964, 4091950; 
589967, 4091930; 589964, 4091890; 589918, 4091800; 589899, 4091780; 
589871, 4091770; 589823, 4091760; 589784, 4091760; 589744, 4091750; 
589722, 4091750; 589692, 4091760; 589667, 4091780; 589656, 4091770; 
589640, 4091750; 589616, 4091740; 589559, 4091710; 589532, 4091690; 
589521, 4091660; 589521, 4091640; 589522, 4091620; 589504, 4091610; 
589489, 4091620; 589476, 4091640; 589455, 4091700; 589450, 4091730; 
589449, 4091770; 589458, 4091800; 589472, 4091830; 589473, 4091840; 
589465, 4091860; 589464, 4091890; 589463, 4091900; 589482, 4091920; 
589506, 4091940; 589522, 4091950; 589964, 4091950.
    (ii) Map 5 of Units D and E follows:

[[Page 63997]]


[[Page 63998]]

    (10) Unit F: Rodeo Gulch. Santa Cruz County, California.
    From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Soquel. Lands bounded by the 
following UTM zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 590971, 4094630; 
590995, 4094740; 591007, 4094780; 591037, 4094830; 591069, 4094860; 
591095, 4094900; 591125, 4094960; 591182, 4094940; 591196, 4094940; 
591199, 4094950; 591207, 4094980; 591216, 4095000; 591225, 4095030; 
591220, 4095050; 591225, 4095090; 591232, 4095130; 591241, 4095160; 
591252, 4095180; 591265, 4095180; 591291, 4095170; 591321, 4095140; 
591353, 4095050; 591393, 4094970; 591301, 4094960; 591293, 4094950; 
591299, 4094910; 591300, 4094850; 591293, 4094810; 591275, 4094750; 
591252, 4094660; 591224, 4094650; 591185, 4094630; 591097, 4094630; 
590971, 4094630.
    (11) Unit G: Soquel Unit. Santa Cruz County, California.
    (i) Unit G (Soquel north subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 
maps Soquel and Laurel. Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10, 
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 592050, 4095340; 592094, 4095290; 592102, 
4095240; 592112, 4095200; 592119, 4095200; 592130, 4095200; 592158, 
4095210; 592173, 4095220; 592180, 4095230; 592193, 4095270; 592211, 
4095320; 592218, 4095330; 592227, 4095330; 592257, 4095330; 592275, 
4095330; 592299, 4095330; 592393, 4095340; 592404, 4095330; 592411, 
4095220; 592423, 4095180; 592425, 4095140; 592414, 4095130; 592381, 
4095120; 592290, 4095120; 592177, 4095120; 592165, 4095120; 592159, 
4095120; 592149, 4095110; 592138, 4095100; 592129, 4095090; 592116, 
4095090; 592109, 4095100; 592041, 4095190; 592009, 4095220; 591986, 
4095240; 591980, 4095270; 591970, 4095360; 591971, 4095360; 591973, 
4095370; 591995, 4095390; 592012, 4095400; 592021, 4095410; 592031, 
4095400; 592046, 4095390; 592050, 4095340.
    (ii) Unit G (Soquel north area). From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps 
Soquel and Laurel. Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10 NAD83 
coordinates (E, N). 592050, 4095340; 592094, 4095290; 592102, 4095240; 
592112, 4095200; 592119, 4095200; 592130, 4095200; 592158, 4095210; 
592173, 4095220; 592180, 4095230; 592193, 4095270; 592211, 4095320; 
592218, 4095330; 592227, 4095330; 592257, 4095330; 592275, 4095330; 
592299, 4095330; 592393, 4095340; 592404, 4095330; 592411, 4095220; 
592423, 4095180; 592425, 4095140; 592414, 4095130; 592381, 4095120; 
592290, 4095120; 592177, 4095120; 592165, 4095120; 592159, 4095120; 
592149, 4095110; 592138, 4095100; 592129, 4095090; 592116, 4095090; 
592109, 4095100; 592041, 4095190; 592009, 4095220; 591986, 4095240; 
591980, 4095270; 591970, 4095360; 591971, 4095360; 591973, 4095370; 
591995, 4095390; 592012, 4095400; 592021, 4095410; 592031, 4095400; 
592046, 4095390; 592050, 4095340.
    (iii) Unit G (Soquel south subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 
maps Soquel and Laurel. Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10, 
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 592076, 4095040; 592097, 4094850; 592304, 
4094860; 592315, 4094660; 592322, 4094620; 592334, 4094580; 592341, 
4094510; 592347, 4094490; 592354, 4094480; 592375, 4094440; 592378, 
4094430; 592380, 4094400; 592385, 4094380; 592406, 4094360; 592430, 
4094320; 592442, 4094310; 592460, 4094300; 592478, 4094290; 592491, 
4094280; 592494, 4094210; 592495, 4094190; 592491, 4094180; 592478, 
4094180; 592458, 4094180; 592452, 4094200; 592442, 4094200; 592326, 
4094210; 592311, 4094210; 592224, 4094110; 592216, 4094110; 592204, 
4094110; 592165, 4094130; 592161, 4094140; 592126, 4094560; 592123, 
4094590; 592117, 4094610; 592105, 4094630; 592087, 4094670; 592074, 
4094690; 592057, 4094720; 592047, 4094730; 592036, 4094730; 592032, 
4094720; 592036, 4094700; 592043, 4094680; 592047, 4094650; 592043, 
4094610; 592036, 4094550; 592000, 4094420; 591994, 4094390; 591987, 
4094380; 591973, 4094380; 591957, 4094380; 591944, 4094380; 591904, 
4094420; 591855, 4094440; 591853, 4094500; 591833, 4094500; 591696, 
4094500; 591696, 4094440; 591606, 4094490; 591597, 4094510; 591596, 
4094520; 591613, 4094650; 591617, 4094650; 591676, 4094660; 591718, 
4094660; 591751, 4094660; 591759, 4094670; 591757, 4094680; 591749, 
4094680; 591738, 4094690; 591704, 4094690; 591656, 4094710; 591651, 
4094720; 591651, 4094730; 591657, 4094740; 591711, 4094750; 591720, 
4094740; 591726, 4094730; 591736, 4094730; 591777, 4094730; 591790, 
4094740; 591797, 4094740; 591806, 4094750; 591819, 4094750; 591831, 
4094750; 591845, 4094740; 591856, 4094740; 591935, 4094740; 591946, 
4094880; 591956, 4094930; 591995, 4095060; 591998, 4095100; 592017, 
4095090; 592059, 4095060; 592076, 4095040.
    (iv) Map 6 of Units F and G follows:

[[Page 63999]]


[[Page 64000]]

    (12) Unit H: Porter Gulch. Santa Cruz County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Soquel and Laurel. Lands 
bounded by the following UTM zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 594615, 
4095600; 594643, 4095630; 594684, 4095640; 594774, 4095680; 594850, 
4095720; 594898, 4095750; 594929, 4095780; 594958, 4095820; 595017, 
4095780; 595008, 4095760; 594990, 4095720; 594993, 4095700; 595020, 
4095680; 595057, 4095630; 595081, 4095610; 595068, 4095600; 595061, 
4095590; 595045, 4095580; 595013, 4095550; 594989, 4095540; 594967, 
4095530; 594929, 4095520; 594917, 4095520; 594907, 4095500; 594893, 
4095470; 594857, 4095380; 594846, 4095340; 594843, 4095320; 594842, 
4095290; 594839, 4095250; 594838, 4095180; 594835, 4095150; 594828, 
4095130; 594816, 4095120; 594800, 4095120; 594785, 4095120; 594772, 
4095130; 594765, 4095130; 594760, 4095140; 594758, 4095150; 594760, 
4095170; 594766, 4095230; 594779, 4095310; 594819, 4095420; 594856, 
4095500; 594867, 4095520; 594869, 4095540; 594863, 4095550; 594848, 
4095560; 594837, 4095550; 594833, 4095540; 594828, 4095540; 594810, 
4095500; 594776, 4095470; 594747, 4095440; 594718, 4095410; 594689, 
4095370; 594669, 4095370; 594652, 4095370; 594639, 4095380; 594627, 
4095380; 594622, 4095400; 594624, 4095470; 594606, 4095470; 594587, 
4095460; 594571, 4095470; 594565, 4095480; 594557, 4095480; 594549, 
4095480; 594530, 4095480; 594518, 4095470; 594514, 4095460; 594517, 
4095440; 594509, 4095430; 594498, 4095430; 594473, 4095430; 594462, 
4095430; 594453, 4095430; 594444, 4095420; 594442, 4095410; 594441, 
4095390; 594436, 4095380; 594427, 4095380; 594415, 4095380; 594411, 
4095390; 594394, 4095420; 594390, 4095440; 594390, 4095450; 594391, 
4095470; 594410, 4095490; 594457, 4095530; 594502, 4095550; 594542, 
4095560; 594597, 4095560; 594597, 4095600; 594615, 4095600.
    (ii) Map 7 of Unit H follows:

[[Page 64001]]


[[Page 64002]]

    (13) Unit I: Watsonville Unit. Santa Cruz County, California.
    (i) Unit I (Watsonville north subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle map Watsonville West. Lands bounded by the following UTM 
zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 606195, 4088630; 606299, 4088730; 
606331, 4088750; 606365, 4088760; 606454, 4088750; 606492, 4088750; 
606515, 4088750; 606535, 4088760; 606555, 4088800; 606560, 4088840; 
606580, 4088880; 606607, 4088890; 606660, 4088900; 606927, 4088910; 
606938, 4088530; 606930, 4088220; 606810, 4088090; 606689, 4087970; 
606652, 4088040; 606596, 4088110; 606522, 4088170; 606490, 4088210; 
606437, 4088250; 606362, 4088300; 606303, 4088340; 606274, 4088370; 
606263, 4088390; 606252, 4088430; 606234, 4088450; 606219, 4088480; 
606215, 4088520; 606199, 4088590; 606195, 4088630.
    (ii) Unit I (Airport subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map 
Watsonville West. Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10, NAD83 
coordinates (E, N): 607026, 4087500; 606967, 4087520; 607005, 4087620; 
607031, 4087670; 607046, 4087710; 607073, 4087750; 607095, 4087820; 
607136, 4087830; 607137, 4087860; 607146, 4087980; 607140, 4088020; 
607145, 4088050; 607158, 4088060; 607202, 4088060; 607247, 4088050; 
607252, 4088090; 607292, 4088090; 607378, 4088100; 607383, 4088250; 
607306, 4088240; 607226, 4088240; 607201, 4088250; 607184, 4088270; 
607159, 4088300; 607147, 4088310; 607147, 4088340; 607158, 4088380; 
607195, 4088470; 607203, 4088510; 607212, 4088560; 607222, 4088620; 
607226, 4088650; 607227, 4088710; 607240, 4088750; 607241, 4088780; 
607236, 4088820; 607246, 4088840; 607340, 4088840; 607846, 4088860; 
607947, 4089000; 608079, 4089030; 608191, 4088860; 608477, 4088700; 
608460, 4088620; 608641, 4088590; 608652, 4088610; 608746, 4088570; 
608602, 4088450; 607932, 4088550; 607689, 4088150; 607267, 4087440; 
607312, 4087430; 607297, 4087340; 607239, 4087340; 607201, 4087350; 
607181, 4087320; 607148, 4087320; 607031, 4087350; 606969, 4087370; 
607026, 4087500.
    (iii) Unit I (Watsonville south subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle map Watsonville West. Lands bounded by the following UTM 
zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 609032, 4085780; 609074, 4085770; 
609198, 4085730; 609153, 4085610; 609208, 4085430; 609333, 4085390; 
609504, 4085250; 609242, 4085080; 609191, 4085230; 609164, 4085310; 
609006, 4085250; 609123, 4085020; 608761, 4084800; 608590, 4085160; 
608651, 4085380; 608760, 4085450; 608869, 4085480; 608941, 4085530; 
608976, 4085570; 609032, 4085580; 609040, 4085630; 608979, 4085640; 
608931, 4085660; 608920, 4085700; 608928, 4085730; 608957, 4085760; 
608995, 4085780; 609032, 4085780.
    (iv) Unit I (Highway 1 north subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle map Watsonville West. Lands bounded by the following UTM 
zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 607333, 4087090; 607348, 4087150; 
607389, 4087150; 607449, 4087090; 607498, 4087060; 607570, 4087060; 
607570, 4086940; 607558, 4086930; 607333, 4087090.
    (v) Unit I (Highway 1 south subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 
map Watsonville West. Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10, NAD83 
coordinates (E, N): 607819, 4086590; 607892, 4086560; 607893, 4086520; 
607900, 4086500; 607920, 4086470; 607931, 4086440; 607946, 4086410; 
607978, 4086370; 608003, 4086320; 608031, 4086280; 608057, 4086260; 
608029, 4086240; 608063, 4086190; 608101, 4086160; 608138, 4086130; 
608069, 4086100; 607819, 4086590.
    (vi) Unit I (Harkins Slough subunit). From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 
map Watsonville West. Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10, NAD83 
coordinates (E, N): 606736, 4084900; 606721, 4084900; 606703, 4084900; 
606698, 4084920; 606703, 4084940; 606709, 4084960; 606710, 4085000; 
606715, 4085030; 606715, 4085050; 606715, 4085080; 606707, 4085090; 
606698, 4085100; 606678, 4085110; 606661, 4085140; 606634, 4085230; 
606632, 4085260; 606635, 4085290; 606651, 4085310; 606667, 4085370; 
606677, 4085390; 606695, 4085410; 606713, 4085420; 606695, 4085510; 
606701, 4085540; 606721, 4085550; 606733, 4085580; 606742, 4085610; 
606745, 4085650; 606756, 4085690; 606773, 4085710; 606759, 4085800; 
606744, 4085830; 606736, 4085870; 606725, 4085930; 606729, 4085960; 
606741, 4085990; 606761, 4086020; 606756, 4086050; 606735, 4086090; 
606715, 4086130; 606704, 4086180; 606689, 4086350; 606690, 4086390; 
606696, 4086440; 606715, 4086490; 606746, 4086540; 606762, 4086620; 
606767, 4086650; 606766, 4086700; 606762, 4086780; 606786, 4086810; 
606896, 4086850; 606923, 4086940; 607053, 4086940; 607125, 4087120; 
607085, 4087130; 607002, 4087200; 606976, 4087250; 606968, 4087280; 
607157, 4087140; 607286, 4087040; 607497, 4086890; 607591, 4086820; 
607719, 4086630; 607746, 4086620; 608027, 4086080; 607960, 4086030; 
607945, 4086070; 607914, 4086180; 607889, 4086200; 607861, 4086220; 
607830, 4086260; 607799, 4086310; 607782, 4086380; 607764, 4086400; 
607738, 4086400; 607715, 4086390; 607705, 4086370; 607705, 4086350; 
607713, 4086320; 607741, 4086240; 607771, 4086180; 607825, 4086100; 
607863, 4086050; 607891, 4085970; 607999, 4085770; 608023, 4085720; 
608026, 4085670; 608026, 4085630; 608016, 4085590; 607990, 4085560; 
607945, 4085560; 607911, 4085550; 607871, 4085500; 607932, 4085480; 
607985, 4085460; 608013, 4085440; 608016, 4085410; 608006, 4085380; 
607995, 4085350; 608006, 4085310; 608054, 4085240; 608087, 4085210; 
608107, 4085160; 608143, 4085110; 608184, 4085090; 608219, 4085060; 
608233, 4085030; 608237, 4084990; 608186, 4084950; 608118, 4084660; 
607891, 4084590; 607817, 4084540; 607733, 4084490; 607718, 4084490; 
607703, 4084510; 607705, 4084540; 607708, 4084590; 607708, 4084640; 
607703, 4084680; 607659, 4084750; 607643, 4084810; 607647, 4084850; 
607672, 4084900; 607715, 4084960; 607746, 4084980; 607777, 4084990; 
607821, 4085040; 607812, 4085100; 607937, 4085270; 607886, 4085330; 
607769, 4085220; 607709, 4085150; 607649, 4085150; 607619, 4085130; 
607642, 4085070; 607644, 4085050; 607639, 4085020; 607562, 4084870; 
607547, 4084850; 607527, 4084850; 607499, 4084850; 607474, 4084850; 
607385, 4084990; 607313, 4085120; 607306, 4085190; 607301, 4085230; 
607313, 4085260; 607359, 4085370; 607405, 4085500; 607407, 4085550; 
607397, 4085580; 607341, 4085640; 607242, 4085780; 607199, 4085760; 
607186, 4085730; 607196, 4085690; 607293, 4085520; 607308, 4085490; 
607311, 4085460; 607295, 4085370; 607241, 4085250; 607232, 4085220; 
607232, 4085190; 607242, 4085100; 607269, 4085010; 607303, 4084920; 
607375, 4084780; 607484, 4084640; 607545, 4084530; 607586, 4084420; 
607028, 4083920; 607011, 4083950; 607058, 4084120; 607036, 4084150; 
606990, 4084230; 606906, 4084180; 606797, 4084220; 606768, 4084240; 
606753, 4084300; 606753, 4084330; 606758, 4084360; 606765, 4084380; 
606774, 4084410; 606791, 4084480; 606759, 4084610; 606696, 4084670; 
606680, 4084680; 606672, 4084700; 606667, 4084720; 606684, 4084760; 
606698, 4084770; 606712, 4084780; 606736, 4084810; 606756, 4084840; 
606770, 4084860; 606758, 4084890; 606736, 4084900.
    (vii) Map 8 of Unit I follows:

[[Page 64003]]


[[Page 64004]]

    (14) Unit J: Casserly. Santa Cruz County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Loma Prieta, Mt. Madona, 
Watsonville East, and Watsonville West. Lands bounded by the following 
UTM zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 610201, 4094760; 610253, 
4094770; 610315, 4094760; 610340, 4094730; 610351, 4094720; 610366, 
4094730; 610368, 4094750; 610363, 4094780; 610346, 4094860; 610330, 
4094910; 610300, 4094980; 610231, 4095070; 610143, 4095150; 610117, 
4095190; 610107, 4095220; 610111, 4095230; 610169, 4095280; 610196, 
4095290; 610217, 4095330; 610236, 4095340; 610262, 4095340; 610289, 
4095330; 610366, 4095260; 610399, 4095240; 610412, 4095240; 610428, 
4095240; 610453, 4095240; 610471, 4095210; 610499, 4095190; 610524, 
4095200; 610548, 4095210; 610563, 4095200; 610577, 4095170; 610599, 
4095160; 610619, 4095170; 610630, 4095180; 610659, 4095190; 610678, 
4095200; 610695, 4095220; 610702, 4095240; 610711, 4095250; 610730, 
4095240; 610750, 4095240; 610789, 4095230; 610783, 4095210; 610777, 
4095180; 610768, 4095150; 610761, 4095120; 610763, 4095090; 610779, 
4095070; 610809, 4095070; 610832, 4095070; 610851, 4095080; 610872, 
4095070; 610880, 4095050; 610878, 4095010; 610879, 4094990; 610881, 
4094980; 610911, 4094930; 610924, 4094910; 610946, 4094890; 610964, 
4094890; 610982, 4094890; 611082, 4094950; 611126, 4094960; 611161, 
4094970; 611190, 4094970; 611213, 4094950; 611216, 4094930; 611211, 
4094870; 611210, 4094830; 611226, 4094710; 611217, 4094510; 611258, 
4094460; 611358, 4094440; 611566, 4094440; 611639, 4094440; 611754, 
4094460; 611806, 4094450; 611867, 4094430; 612002, 4094360; 612045, 
4094320; 612071, 4094280; 612100, 4094230; 612136, 4094160; 612158, 
4094130; 612214, 4094100; 612248, 4094090; 612354, 4094010; 612393, 
4094000; 612433, 4093990; 612493, 4094000; 612575, 4094010; 612678, 
4094000; 612764, 4093980; 612836, 4093950; 612974, 4093850; 613106, 
4093720; 613136, 4093690; 613169, 4093670; 613269, 4093640; 613373, 
4093620; 613483, 4093620; 613505, 4093590; 613499, 4093570; 613482, 
4093550; 613451, 4093520; 613409, 4093480; 613386, 4093440; 613380, 
4093410; 613391, 4093380; 613409, 4093380; 613441, 4093380; 613522, 
4093420; 613553, 4093430; 613596, 4093430; 613625, 4093410; 613641, 
4093360; 613631, 4093320; 613615, 4093290; 613563, 4093250; 613496, 
4093210; 613479, 4093190; 613480, 4093170; 613542, 4093120; 613617, 
4093090; 613699, 4093090; 613732, 4093080; 613772, 4093050; 613790, 
4093020; 613855, 4092900; 613866, 4092870; 613909, 4092860; 613918, 
4092810; 613905, 4092770; 613871, 4092710; 613783, 4092690; 613730, 
4092670; 613661, 4092630; 613624, 4092650; 613555, 4092700; 613496, 
4092640; 613468, 4092650; 613409, 4092710; 613316, 4092620; 613285, 
4092580; 613240, 4092560; 613167, 4092570; 613101, 4092530; 613023, 
4092520; 612958, 4092450; 612847, 4092450; 612846, 4092620; 612576, 
4092620; 612538, 4092680; 612564, 4092770; 612630, 4092830; 612631, 
4092890; 612676, 4092950; 612688, 4093020; 612680, 4093040; 612651, 
4093040; 612603, 4093000; 612561, 4092980; 612529, 4092970; 612490, 
4092980; 612464, 4093000; 612439, 4093000; 612409, 4092950; 612333, 
4092870; 612269, 4092760; 612242, 4092710; 612214, 4092690; 612167, 
4092710; 612109, 4092760; 612022, 4092810; 612003, 4092850; 612002, 
4092880; 612023, 4092900; 612065, 4092900; 612111, 4092920; 612145, 
4092970; 612159, 4092990; 612183, 4092990; 612212, 4092980; 612227, 
4092960; 612259, 4092950; 612312, 4092970; 612336, 4093010; 612323, 
4093080; 612339, 4093130; 612369, 4093180; 612390, 4093200; 612383, 
4093220; 612353, 4093240; 612307, 4093250; 612235, 4093250; 612181, 
4093280; 612123, 4093320; 612011, 4093360; 612028, 4093410; 612061, 
4093490; 612043, 4093600; 612069, 4093670; 611870, 4093750; 611832, 
4093680; 611760, 4093640; 611676, 4093620; 611667, 4093570; 611636, 
4093530; 611587, 4093520; 611584, 4093430; 611398, 4093410; 611395, 
4093160; 611331, 4093110; 611251, 4093060; 610986, 4093130; 610818, 
4093180; 610752, 4093240; 610709, 4093270; 610662, 4093270; 610498, 
4093240; 610429, 4093250; 610382, 4093310; 610351, 4093370; 610333, 
4093410; 610109, 4093470; 610090, 4093520; 610066, 4093570; 610046, 
4093640; 610050, 4093710; 610070, 4093790; 610114, 4093830; 610182, 
4093840; 610443, 4093800; 610465, 4093800; 610477, 4093820; 610483, 
4093860; 610489, 4093950; 610489, 4093980; 610467, 4094020; 610456, 
4094100; 610442, 4094120; 610426, 4094130; 610385, 4094150; 610296, 
4094180; 610278, 4094190; 610255, 4094210; 610220, 4094250; 610188, 
4094290; 610152, 4094330; 610121, 4094380; 610115, 4094410; 610110, 
4094460; 610121, 4094590; 610133, 4094680; 610140, 4094710; 610154, 
4094730; 610175, 4094750; 610201, 4094760.
    (ii) Map 9 of Unit J follows:

[[Page 64005]]


[[Page 64006]]

    (15) Unit K: Elkhorn. Santa Cruz County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Watsonville East, Prunedale. 
Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 
611931, 4081300; 611930, 4081420; 611939, 4081530; 611956, 4081610; 
611983, 4081680; 611981, 4081740; 611956, 4081790; 611918, 4081860; 
611877, 4081940; 611839, 4082020; 611806, 4082090; 611787, 4082150; 
611788, 4082180; 611796, 4082190; 611834, 4082200; 611862, 4082190; 
611875, 4082170; 611885, 4082140; 611902, 4082110; 611916, 4082100; 
611967, 4082090; 612005, 4082090; 612065, 4082080; 612155, 4082060; 
612210, 4082080; 612247, 4082100; 612283, 4082110; 612348, 4082090; 
612423, 4082080; 612481, 4082050; 612501, 4082000; 612519, 4081910; 
612517, 4081840; 612517, 4081750; 612499, 4081720; 612478, 4081690; 
612469, 4081640; 612473, 4081600; 612504, 4081490; 612509, 4081400; 
612518, 4081210; 612520, 4081080; 612504, 4081040; 612475, 4081010; 
612428, 4080960; 612393, 4080940; 612333, 4080880; 612255, 4080790; 
612142, 4080860; 612070, 4080930; 612001, 4081020; 611957, 4081120; 
611940, 4081200; 611931, 4081300.
    (ii) Map 10 of Unit K follows:

[[Page 64007]]


* * * * *

    Dated: September 30, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-25370 Filed 10-15-02; 8:45 am]