[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33880-33921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13912]
[[Page 33879]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 111
June 9, 2011
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Endangered
Status, Revised Critical Habitat Designation, and Taxonomic Revision
for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 33880]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0076]
RIN 1018-AX18
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Endangered
Status, Revised Critical Habitat Designation, and Taxonomic Revision
for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
recognize the recent change to the taxonomy of the currently endangered
plant taxon, Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, in which the subspecies
was split into two distinct full species, Monardella viminea (willowy
monardella) and Monardella stoneana (Jennifer's monardella). Because
the original subspecies, Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, was listed
as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act), we are reviewing and updating the threats analysis that we
completed for the taxon in 1998, when it was listed as a subspecies, to
determine if any of that analysis has changed based on this revised
taxonomy. We are also reviewing the status of the new species,
Monardella stoneana. We propose that Monardella viminea's current
listing status should be retained as endangered, and we propose to
delist the portion of the old listed taxon that has been split off into
the new species, Monardella stoneana, because it does not meet the
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act. We also propose
to designate critical habitat for Monardella viminea (willowy
monardella). Approximately 348 acres (141 hectares) are proposed for
designation as critical habitat for M. viminea, in San Diego County,
California. We are not proposing to designate critical habitat for
Monardella stoneana at this time because we do not believe this species
warrants listing under the Act. However, should we determine, after
review of the best available scientific information and public comment,
that Monardella stoneana does warrant listing, we will propose critical
habitat for Monardella stoneana, should it be determined to be prudent,
in a separate proposed rule.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
August 8, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by July 25,
2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2010-0076, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2010-0076; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010
Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-
9440; facsimile 760-431-5901. If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS)
at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend any final action resulting from this proposed rule will
be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments
or information from other concerned government agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
proposed rule. Please note that throughout the remainder of this
document we will use the currently recognized names, Monardella
viminea, for references to willowy monardella, and Monardella stoneana,
for references to Jennifer's monardella. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) Specific information regarding our recognition of Monardella
viminea and M. stoneana at the species rank, on the segregation of
ranges of M. stoneana and M. viminea, and on our proposals that M.
viminea should remain listed as endangered and that M. stoneana does
not warrant listing under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(2) Any available information on known or suspected threats and
proposed or ongoing development projects with the potential to threaten
either Monardella viminea or M. stoneana.
(3) The effects of potential threat factors to both Monardella
viminea and M. stoneana that are the basis for a listing determination
under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(4) Specific information regarding impacts of fire on Monardella
viminea or M. stoneana individuals or their habitat.
(5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act for Monardella viminea
including whether there are threats to the species from human activity,
the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation,
and whether that increase in threats outweighs the benefit of
designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent.
(6) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Monardella viminea or M.
stoneana habitat,
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of these species, should be included in the designation
and why,
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change, and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(7) Information that may assist us in identifying or clarifying the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
Monardella viminea.
(8) How the proposed critical habitat boundaries could be refined
to more closely or accurately circumscribe the areas identified as
containing the
[[Page 33881]]
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
Monardella viminea.
(9) How we could improve or modify our design of critical habitat
units, particularly our criteria for width of essential habitat for
Monardella viminea. We especially request information on West Sycamore
Canyon and Unit 2 (where two groups of M. viminea were not included
under the criteria used to draw proposed critical habitat boundaries)
and areas such as Elanus, Lopez, and Rose Canyons that we have
identified as not meeting the definition of critical habitat.
(10) Information on pollinators of Monardella viminea or M.
stoneana that may be essential for the conservation of these species,
including information on areas that provide habitat for these
pollinators.
(11) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(12) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the two species and the proposed critical habitat.
(13) Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of
the proposed designation of critical habitat.
(14) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(15) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation for Monardella viminea should be considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of
including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular for
those lands covered by the County of San Diego Subarea Plan or the City
of San Diego Subarea Plan under the Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP). Information on obtaining copies of these plans will be
provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
(16) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
revised rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We
will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not
listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will post your entire comment--
including your personal identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request at the top of your document that
we withhold personal information such as your street address, phone
number, or e-mail address from public review; however, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available
for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov (under Docket
Number FWS-R8-ES-2010-0076), or by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests must be received by the date listed in the DATES
section. Such requests must be made in writing and be addressed to the
Field Supervisor at the address provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if
any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those
hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
our recognition of the taxonomic split of Monardella linoides ssp.
viminea into two distinct taxa: Monardella viminea (willowy monardella)
and Monardella stoneana (Jennifer's monardella); the retention of M.
viminea as endangered; the proposed critical habitat for M. viminea;
and our conclusion that M. stoneana is not endangered or threatened.
This proposed rule incorporates new information specific to M. viminea
and M. stoneana including species descriptions, distributions,
taxonomic rank, and nomenclature. We also provide information on
current threats to the two species, potential pollinators, and
additional information on soil not included in our listing rule for
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea published in the Federal Register on
October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54938), and our critical habitat designation
published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65662).
Previous Federal Action
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea was listed as endangered in 1998
(63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). An account of Federal actions prior to
listing may be found in the listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13,
1998). On November 9, 2005, we published a proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for M. linoides ssp. viminea (70 FR 67956). On
November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65662), we published our final rule designating
critical habitat for M. linoides ssp. viminea. On January 14, 2009, the
Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California challenging our
designation of critical habitat for M. linoides ssp. viminea (Center
for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, Case No. 3:09-CV-0050-MMA-
AJB). A settlement agreement was reached with the plaintiffs dated
November 14, 2009, in which we agreed to submit a proposed revised
critical habitat designation to the Federal Register for publication by
February 18, 2011, and a final revised critical habitat designation to
the Federal Register for publication by February 17, 2012. By order
dated February 10, 2011, the district court approved a modification to
the settlement agreement that extended the deadline for Federal
Register submission to June 18, 2011, for the proposed revised critical
habitat designation. The deadline for submission of a final revised
critical habitat designation to the Federal Register remains February
17, 2012.
Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Changes Affecting Monardella linoides ssp.
viminea
In 2001, Kelly and Burrascano (2001, p. 4) noted that ``multiple
biologists'' had observed differences in the southernmost occurrences
of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea. Kelly and Burrascano (2001, p. 4)
also stated that Andrew Sanders of the University of California at
Riverside believed the plants were a separate species. Elvin and
Sanders (2003, pp. 425-432) subsequently segregated the southern
occurrences of willowy monardella as a distinct taxon and recognized it
at the species rank as M. stoneana (see Figure 1). Elvin and Sanders
(2003, p. 430) also returned willowy monardella to its original
specific rank as M. viminea. The Service initially disagreed with the
segregation and classification of M. stoneana due to lack of sufficient
[[Page 33882]]
supportive evidence presented by Elvin and Sanders (Bartel and Wallace
2004, pp. 1-3), a view continued in our 5-year review (Service 2008,
pp. 6-7).
Further genetic investigation of Monardella has recently been
conducted using ISSR (Inter-Simple Sequence Repeats). ISSR is a general
term for a genome region between microsatellite loci that can be used
for DNA fingerprinting and delimiting species. ISSR analysis can have
multiple application uses, including taxonomic studies of closely
related species (Prince 2010, pers. comm.). Using ISSRs, Prince (2009,
pp. 22-31) performed an extensive survey of Monardella taxa and found
that M. stoneana and M. viminea were both more closely related to
different subspecies of M. linoides than to each other. These data are
supportive of the earlier recognition by the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB),
and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) of M. viminea and M.
stoneana as two separate taxa. Moreover, M. viminea and M. stoneana are
treated as full species in the recently available online unpublished
treatment of Monardella (Brunell et al., in press) that will be
published in the forthcoming revision of the Jepson Manual, the
standard guide to the flora of California. According to the authors
(Brunell et al., in press), the two species can be morphologically
differentiated based on slight differences in leaf width, bract length
and width, and flower cluster width. Reportedly, M. viminea and M.
stoneana will be similarly treated as separate species in the future
treatment of the genus for the Flora of North America project (G.
Wallace, Service 2010, pers. obs.). As a result of the new data and
supportive references noted above, we propose to recognize the change
in the taxonomic rank and nomenclature of the listed entity as two
distinct species, M. viminea and M. stoneana. We have included those
proposed changes in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of
this rule, and we expect to adopt them when we publish a final
determination for this action.
When we listed Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, we considered 20
occurrences to be extant in the United States (see Table 1) (63 FR
54938; October 13, 1998). As of 2008, 9 occurrences were considered to
be extirpated, leaving 11 extant occurrences (Service 2008, p. 5). All
9 extirpated occurrences were in central San Diego County, in the range
of what is now considered to be M. viminea. Based on updated
information from Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar (Kassebaum
2010, pers. comm.), two additional occurrences have since been
extirpated, again in the range of M. viminea. Additionally, as a result
of taxonomic changes, the two southernmost occurrences were
reclassified as M. stoneana after the 2008 5-year review (see Table 1).
Therefore, we believe there are now only seven occurrences of M.
viminea, and these seven were extant at the time of listing. We are not
aware of any new occurrences of M. viminea, other than those planted in
2007 as a conservation measure to offset impacts associated with the
development of the Carroll Canyon Business Park. More information on
the four translocated occurrences is discussed in the Geographic Range
and Status section below. In addition to two occurrences now considered
to be M. stoneana (but considered at listing to be M. linoides ssp.
viminea), we now know of an additional 7 occurrences of M. stoneana,
all in what was once the southern range of M. linoides ssp. viminea
(Figure 1). We presume those occurrences were extant at the time M.
linoides ssp. viminea was listed. The single plant in the M. stoneana
occurrence at Otay Lakes (M. stoneana EO 4, former M. viminea EO 28)
was extirpated by the 2007 Harris fire. Therefore, we consider eight
extant occurrences of M. stoneana.
Table 1--A Description of When Occurrences Were First Recognized by the Service, When They Were First Considered
Extirpated, and Which Occurrences the Service Currently Considers Extant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNDDB element Known and
Location occurrence extant at Extant at 2008 Currently
number (EO) listing 5-yr review extant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monardella viminea:
Lopez Canyon............................ 1 x x x
Cemetery Canyon......................... 3 x ............... ...............
Carroll Canyon.......................... 4 x ............... ...............
Sycamore Canyon......................... 8 x x x
San Clemente Canyon..................... 11 x ............... ...............
San Clemente Canyon..................... 12, 18, 19 x ............... ...............
San Clemente Canyon..................... 13 x ............... ...............
Murphy Canyon........................... 14 x ............... ...............
Murphy Canyon........................... 15 x x ...............
San Clemente Canyon..................... 16 x ............... ...............
San Clemente Canyon..................... 17 x ............... ...............
West Sycamore Canyon.................... 21 x x x
Elanus Canyon........................... 24 x x x
Carroll Canyon.......................... 25 x ............... ...............
Spring Canyon........................... 26 x x x
San Clemente Canyon..................... 27 x x x
Otay Lakes.............................. 28 x x Now considered
M. stoneana EO4
Sycamore Canyon......................... 29 x x x
Miramar NAS............................. 31 x x ...............
Marron Valley........................... none x x Now considered
M. stoneana EO1
Monardella stoneana:
Marron Valley........................... 1 x x x
N.W. Otay Mountain...................... 2 ............... x x
[[Page 33883]]
N.W. Otay Mountain...................... 3 ............... x x
Otay Lakes.............................. 4 x x x
Buschalaugh Cove........................ 5 ............... x ...............
Cottonwood Creek........................ 6 ............... x x
Copper Canyon........................... 7 ............... x x
S. of Otay Mountain..................... 8 ............... x x
Tecate Peak............................. 9 ............... x x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: CNDDB 1998, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Service 2008, Kassebaum 2010.
Throughout this document, we refer to previous reports and
documents, including Federal Register publications. When evaluating
information contained in documents issued prior to the present
document, the reader must bear in mind that information may reference
Monardella viminea as M. linoides ssp. viminea and may include
statements or data referring to plants or populations now known as M.
stoneana.
Only information relevant to actions described in this proposed
rule is provided below. For additional information on Monardella
viminea, including a detailed description of its life history and
habitat, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54938), the final rule designating
critical habitat published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2006
(71 FR 65662), and the 5-year review completed in March 2008 (Service
2008). Actions described below include status reviews of M. viminea and
M. stoneana, and a proposed revision of the critical habitat
designation for M. viminea.
Status Review--Monardella viminea
History of the Action
Federal actions taken prior to listing are described in the listing
rule published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR
54938). On November 9, 2005, we published a proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (70 FR 67956). On
November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65662), we published our final rule designating
critical habitat for M. linoides ssp. viminea.
As described in the Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Changes Affecting
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea section, genetic investigations
conducted since the listing in 1998 and completed after our 2008 5-year
review have provided the needed additional support for the recognition
of Monardella viminea and M. stoneana as separate taxa at the species
rank. This necessitates a review of the listing status of the remaining
M. viminea occurrences and an assessment of the potential listing
status of the newly segregated M. stoneana.
Species Description
Monardella viminea is a perennial herb or subshrub in the Lamiaceae
(mint family) with a woody base and aromatic foliage. The waxy, green,
hairy stems bear conspicuously gland-dotted linear or lance-shaped
leaves, and dense, terminal clusters of white to rose-colored flowers.
The leaves are 0.1-0.2 inch (in) (2-4 millimeters (mm)) wide at the
base. The middle flower bracts are 0.4-0.6 in (10-15 mm) long (Elvin
and Sanders 2003, p. 431). Monardella viminea grows in clumps of 1 to 4
individual plants (Ince and Krantz 2008, p. 2). As the number of plants
within a clump cannot be reliably distinguished without exposing the
roots, M. viminea is usually counted by clumps rather than as
individual plants. Please see the Discussion of the Four Species
section of the listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998) and the
Life History section of the 2005 proposed critical habitat rule (70 FR
67956; November 9, 2005) for more information on this species
description.
Habitat
Monardella viminea occurs in coastal sage scrub and riparian scrub
in sandy bottoms and on banks of ephemeral washes in canyons where
surface water flows for usually less than 48 hours after a rain event
(Scheid 1985, p. 3; Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 430; Kelly and
Burrascano 2006, p. 51). These semi-open washes and drainage areas
typically have little to no canopy cover (Reiser 1994, p. 139). The
species is commonly found with Eriogonum fasciculatum (California
buckwheat) and Baccharis sarothroides (broom baccharis) in habitats
characterized by low herbaceous cover and some shrub cover (Scheid
1985, p. 38). It is most commonly found in canyon bottoms, north-facing
slopes, and along bends of meandering drainages (Elvin and Sanders
2003, p. 426; Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 5). Many of these areas
maintain water longer than other portions of the drainage, although
they do not have long-term standing water (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p.
426). At Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar, M. viminea is absent
from steeper portions of the canyons and prevalent in secondary stream
channels, which suggests M. viminea presence is correlated with reaches
where flow is relatively slow-moving or standing water is present
(Rebman and Dossey 2006a, pp. 5-8).
Monardella viminea is found on soils characterized by a high
content of coarse sandy grains and sediments and cobble deposits
(Scheid 1985, p. 35). The larger sandy particles that make up M.
viminea habitat soils are transported downstream by flood events
(Scheid 1985, p. 36). Soil series that support M. viminea include Stony
Land, Redding Gravelly Loam, Visalia Sandy Loam, and Riverwash (Scheid
1985, p. 35; Rebman and Dossey 2006a, pp. 5-6).
The 5-year review (Service 2008, p. 13) concluded that Monardella
viminea requires a natural or managed regime of periodic, small fires.
The coastal sage habitat that M. viminea favors benefits from small or
managed fires that clear out dead or encroaching scrub vegetation and
reduce nonnative species (Minnich 1983, p. 1290). However, there are
two ways in which fire can negatively impact M. viminea habitat: (1)
increased frequency of fires of all sizes, which can result in type
conversion; or (2) invasion of nonnative grasses into riparian or
coastal sage scrub habitats, which can choke out native vegetation,
including shrubs associated with M. viminea. Additionally, large or
unmanaged fires (sometimes referred to as ``megafires'')
[[Page 33884]]
can be a particular threat to a narrow endemic species like M. viminea
because a single megafire could eliminate a large proportion of
individual plants within the extant range of the species, although M.
viminea is capable of resprouting after fire (Rebman and Dossey 2006b,
p. 2). Additional information is needed regarding the role of fire in
M. viminea habitat, particularly within riparian portions of canyons.
Please see our request for information in the Public Comments section
above. For more information on and discussion of the species'
description and its habitat see the Discussion of the Four Species
section of the listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998) and the
Distribution and Status section of the proposed critical habitat rule
(70 FR 67956; November 9, 2005). However, we ask the reader to keep in
mind that plants now treated as M. stoneana and their habitat were
included in the discussion at the time those documents were published.
Life History
Very little is known about the germination and establishment of
Monardella viminea. Mature plants flower readily, with inflorescences
(flower heads) persisting for 10 to 12 weeks (Elvin and Sanders 2003,
pp. 430-431). Plants are short-lived perennials, producing a new cohort
of aerial stems each year from a persisting perennial root structure.
Plants of this species are not known to be rhizomatous (connected by
creeping underground stems); however, root masses may become detached
over time, resulting in adjacent genetically identical but spatially
separate plants. Rebman and Dossey (2006a, p. 10) reported that the
peak flowering period at MCAS Miramar is early June to mid-July, with
occasional flowering from May through August and, more rarely, into
September.
No pollination studies are known to exist for Monardella viminea;
however, other Monardella taxa are visited by butterfly and bee species
(Elvin 2004, p. 2). Bees collected from the closely related M. linoides
include wasp-like bees (Hylaeus sp.), mason bees (Osmia spp. or
Chalicodoma spp.), and miner bees (Anthophora spp.) (Hurd 1979, pp.
1762, 1765, 2042, 2073, and 2164). Several observers report European
honeybees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus spp.) as frequent
visitors to M. viminea flowers (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, p. 7; Kelly
and Burrascano 2006, pp. 7-8; Rebman and Dossey 2006a, pp. 10-11).
Wasps and bees from the Bembicine and Andrenid families were collected
from M. viminea plants on MCAS Miramar (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, p.
8). Butterflies known to visit M. viminea flowers include painted
ladies (Vanessa cardui) (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 11), gray
hairstreaks (Strymon melinus), and funereal duskywing skippers (Erynnis
funeralis) (University of California, Berkeley, CalPhotos database
2009). Successful sexual reproduction of flowering plants often depends
on pollinator abundance and effectiveness (Javorek et al. 2002, p.
350). Therefore, adequate numbers of pollinators and sufficient
pollinator movement through the habitat should be considered when
assessing likely population distributions and survival, and habitat
needs of M. viminea.
Geographic Range and Status
Monardella viminea is a geographically narrow endemic species
restricted to three watersheds north of Kearny Mesa in San Diego
County, California (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 431). The occurrences
now considered to be M. viminea are entirely in the northern range of
the originally listed entity M. linoides ssp. viminea (Figure 1). The
portions of the watersheds where M. viminea occurs are found on lands
owned by the Department of Defense at MCAS Miramar, and lands owned by
the City of San Diego, lands owned by the County of San Diego, and
lands under private ownership. In this proposed critical habitat we use
the word ``occurrence'' when describing the location of plants (e.g.,
in a critical habitat unit). In this context, we are referring to point
locations or polygons representing observations of one or more M.
viminea individuals. This may include one or more of the ``element
occurrences'' (EOs) as described by CDFG in the CNDDB. Proposed
critical habitat for M. viminea recognizes the importance of ecosystem
processes that create and maintain suitable habitat for this species.
Consequently, in the Critical Habitat sections of this document, our
critical habitat units follow linear drainages that may include one or
more of the ``element occurrences'' described by CNDDB. Because of the
potentially transient nature of suitable habitat for this species, any
reach along these drainages may be occupied at a given time. In all
other respects in this document, ``element occurrence'' or
``occurrence'' references are those from the cumulative data of the
CNDDB (2010a, EOs 1-31).
Figure 1. Range of Monardella viminea and M. stoneana.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 33885]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.037
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
As of 2008, all eleven known occurrences of Monardella viminea were
considered declining in size (this total includes two occurrences known
to be extirpated by 2010 and two occurrences now considered M.
stoneana), as are four additional transplanted occurrences (see
Transplants below) (Ince and Krantz 2008, p. 9; Service 2008 p. 5). On
MCAS Miramar, the species has declined by 45 percent since the 2002
surveys, from 3,379 individual plants to 1,809 individual plants
(Tierra Data 2011, p. 12). In the past 2 years, multiple clumps of M.
viminea that burned in the 2003 Cedar Fire have resprouted (Kassebaum
2010, pers. comm.). The most recent survey of MCAS Miramar, conducted
in 2009, found juveniles or seedlings present in all canyons except for
Elanus (Tierra Data 2011, pp. 17-18). Prior to this survey, juveniles
were only confirmed present in West Sycamore Canyon (Kassebaum 2010,
pers. comm.).
Transplants
In addition to the seven currently remaining natural occurrences,
in 2007, Monardella viminea was transplanted to four sites within the
historical range of the species as a conservation measure to offset
impacts associated with development of the Carroll Canyon Business
Park. Three of the transplanted sites were in Carroll Canyon and the
fourth in San Clemente Canyon (Ince 2010, p. 3). Most of the M. viminea
[[Page 33886]]
transplants have experienced low survival rates, generally less than 20
percent, although one Carroll Canyon transplanted occurrence was
reported to have a 44 percent survival rate (Service 2003, p. 25; Ince
2010, p. 8).
Summary of Factors Affecting Monardella viminea
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424)
set forth the criteria for determining whether a species is endangered
or threatened under the Act. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors for Monardella viminea is discussed
below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Urbanization/Development
The original listing rule identified urban and residential
development as a threat to Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR
54938; October 13, 1998). Prior to 1992, San Diego had grown by ``a
factor of 10 over the last 50 years'' (Soule et al. 1992, p. 39). At
the time of listing, two large occurrences were located on private
property and development proposals existed for one of these two
parcels. Since listing, one of those two occurrences has been
extirpated due to construction activities: EO 25 from the Carroll
Canyon Business Park (CNDDB 2010a). Additionally, EO 14 in Murphy
Canyon was believed extirpated after listing due to lingering impacts
from construction activity near Highway 15 (CNDDB 2010a). Two
occurrences at MCAS Miramar have been partially destroyed by road
construction since the time of listing.
The Cities of San Diego and Santee have purchased private property
as reserve land for Monardella viminea. Most occurrences are now found
on land conserved or owned by MCAS Miramar, the City of San Diego, and
the County of San Diego. Lands owned by the City and County of San
Diego are covered by the MSCP, which is a habitat conservation plan
(HCP) intended to maintain and enhance biological diversity in the San
Diego region, and to conserve viable populations of endangered,
threatened, and key sensitive species and their habitats (including M.
viminea). The MSCP plan designates lands to be set aside for biological
preserves. However, 20 percent of habitat for M. viminea occurs on
privately owned land outside of the reserve areas. This habitat
includes M. viminea occurrences in Sycamore and Spring Canyons
(portions of EOs 8 and 26), and a transplanted occurrence where plants
were removed for construction of the Carroll Canyon Business Park (Ince
and Krantz 2008, p. 1). Any sites outside of the MSCP reserve areas are
vulnerable to development; portions of Sycamore Canyon where M. viminea
occurs were previously slated for development (Service 2003, pp. 1-23),
though the project has been put on hold due to bankruptcy issues, and
no development is scheduled (San Diego Business Journal 2011, pp. 1-3).
However, the occurrences discussed above represent only a small
proportion of habitat that contains clumps of Monardella viminea.
Seventy percent of land where M. viminea occurs is owned and managed by
MCAS Miramar, and all remaining large occurrences (with more than 100
clumps of M. viminea) are found on MCAS Miramar. All canyon areas on
the base are protected from development. Therefore, although
urbanization does threaten some occurrences of M. viminea, the threat
to the species' habitat is not significant across the range of the
species, now or in the foreseeable future.
Sand and Gravel Mining
Sand and gravel mining has broad-scale disruptive qualities to
native ecosystems (Kondolf et al. 2002, p. 56). Sand and gravel mining
was identified at the time of listing as adversely affecting Monardella
linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). The larger of
two occurrences (340 individuals) found on private land at the time of
listing was identified as being threatened by sand and gravel mining,
which was a threat that had the potential to eliminate or disrupt these
local populations through changes in hydrology and elimination of
individual plants. Since listing, all occurrences vulnerable to mining
impacts have since been extirpated, either by altered drainage patterns
or construction unrelated to mining operations (CNDDB 2010, EOs 3 and
25). Currently, we are not aware of any ongoing mining activities or
any plans for future mining activities that would impact the species.
While we may not be fully aware of all potential gravel mining
activities on private lands, few M. viminea occurrences are on private
land. Therefore, we do not consider sand and gravel mining to currently
be a threat to M. viminea, nor a threat in the foreseeable future.
Altered Hydrology
The original listing rule identified altered hydrology as a threat
to Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, particularly to portions of the
habitat now considered to be in the range of M. viminea (63 FR 54938;
October 13, 1998). Monardella viminea requires a natural hydrological
system to maintain the secondary benches and streambeds on which it
grows (Scheid 1985, pp. 30-31, 34-35). Upstream development can disrupt
this regime, increasing storm runoff which can in turn erode the sandy
banks and secondary benches upon which M. viminea grows. Floods also
have the potential to wash away plants much larger than M. viminea, as
has occurred in Lopez Canyon during heavy runoff following winter
storms (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, pp. 2-3). This flood severely
impacted the M. viminea occurrences in Lopez Canyon (Kelly and
Burrascano 2006, pp. 65-69). Additionally, areas where altered
hydrology caused decreased flows may experience an increase in invasion
by nonnative species into creek beds, which can smother seedling and
mature plants, and prevent natural growth of M. viminea (Rebman and
Dossey 2006a, p. 12).
Changes in local and regional hydrology have had detrimental
effects on Monardella viminea. Increases in surface and subsurface soil
moisture (via direct effects to the water table associated with
watershed urbanization) and changing streams from ephemeral to
perennial adversely affect native plants adapted to a drier
Mediterranean climate (cool moist winters and hot dry summers), such as
M. viminea. Watershed urbanization alters the riparian vegetation
community through changes in median and minimum daily discharges, dry
season run-off, and flood magnitudes, specifically for Los
Pe[ntilde]asquitos Creek and other locations (White and Greer 2006, pp.
133-136). Nonnative species incursion has been exacerbated by the
changing water regime (underground hydrology), and M. viminea has been
unable to adapt to the increased soil moisture (Burrascano 2007, pers.
comm.).
Since listing, three occurrences have been extirpated due to
altered hydrological patterns: Cemetery Canyon, Carroll Canyon, and
western
[[Page 33887]]
San Clemente Canyon. All three of these occurrences are on city-owned
or private land (CNDDB 2010a, EOs 3, 4, 11). On MCAS Miramar,
watersheds on the undeveloped eastern half of the base, where most
large occurrences of Monardella viminea are found, appear to have
retained their natural hydrological regime (Rebman and Dossey 2006, p.
37). The only canyon on MCAS Miramar with substantial development and a
historic occurrence of M. viminea is Rose Canyon. This location has
lost all but one individual M. viminea (Rebman and Dossey 2006, p. 37).
Considering synergistic and cumulative effects of these combined
hydrological threats, exacerbated by heavy development surrounding
several canyons, we expect that altered hydrology will continue to pose
a significant threat to habitats that support Monardella viminea,
particularly outside the border of MCAS Miramar. We anticipate that
this threat will continue into the foreseeable future.
Fire and Type Conversion
The listing rule mentioned that fuel modification to exclude fire
could affect Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13,
1998); the same is true of the reclassified M. viminea and its habitat.
Otherwise, fire was not considered a severe threat to the species at
the time of listing.
Our understanding of fire in fire-dependent habitat has changed
since Monardella linoides ssp. viminea was listed in 1998 (Dyer 2002,
pp. 295-296). Fire is a natural component for regeneration and
maintenance of M. viminea habitat. The species' habitat needs
concerning fire seem contradictory: A total lack of fire for long
periods is undesirable, because the fires that eventually will occur
can be catastrophic; yet re-introduction of fire (either accidentally
or purposefully) is also undesirable, because such fires often become
catastrophic as a result of previous lack of fire (i.e., megafires).
This conflicting situation has resulted from a disruption of the
natural fire regime.
Fire frequency has increased in North American Mediterranean
Shrublands in California since about the 1950s, and studies indicate
that southern California has demonstrated the greatest increase in
wildfire ignitions, primarily due to an increase in population density
beginning in the 1960s, and thus increasing the amount of human-caused
fires (Keeley and Fotheringham 2003, p. 240). Increased wildfire
frequency and decreased return fire interval, in conjunction with other
effects of urbanization, such as increased nitrogen deposition and
habitat disturbance due to foot and vehicle traffic, are believed to
have resulted in the conversion of large areas of coastal sage scrub to
nonnative grasslands in southern California (Service 2003, pp. 57-62;
Brooks et al. 2004, p. 677; Keeley et al. 2005, p. 2109; Marschalek and
Klein 2010, p. 8). This type conversion (conversion of one type of
habitat to another) produces a positive feedback mechanism resulting in
more frequent fires and increasing nonnative plant cover (Brooks et al.
2004, p. 677; Keeley et al. 2005, p. 2109).
However, threats to the habitat from fire exclusion, which impacts
processes that historically created and maintained suitable habitat for
Monardella viminea, may make it even more vulnerable to extinction. The
long-term ecological effects of fire exclusion have not been
specifically detailed for M. viminea; however, we believe the effects
of fire, fire suppression, and fire management in southern California
habitats will be similar to that at locations in the Rockies, Cascades,
and Sierra Nevada Mountains (Keane et al. 2002, pp. 15-16). Fire
exclusion in southern California habitat likely affects: (1) Nutrient
recycling, (2) natural regulation of succession via selecting and
regenerating plants, (3) biological diversity, (4) biomass, (5) insect
and disease populations, (6) interaction between plants and animals,
and (7) biological and biogeochemical processes (i.e., soil property
alteration) (after Keane et al. 2002, p. 8). Where naturally occurring
fire is excluded, species that are adapted to fire (such as M. viminea)
are often replaced by nonnative, invasive species that are better
suited to the same areas in the absence of fire (Keane et al. 2002, p.
9).
Some fire management is provided by CAL FIRE, which is an emergency
response and resource protection department. CAL FIRE creates fire
management plans to identify prevention measures that reduce risk,
inform and involve the local communities in the area, and provide a
framework to diminish potential wildfire losses and implement all
applicable fire management regulations and policies (CAL FIRE 2011b;
County of San Diego 2011a). CAL FIRE has signed a document to assist in
management of backcountry areas in San Diego County, including Sycamore
Canyon Ranch and its Monardella viminea occurrence (DPR 2009, p. 14;
County of San Diego 2011, p. 1). However, the land protected under this
agreement is only two percent of all M. viminea habitat.
Therefore, given the conversion of coastal sage scrub to nonnative
grasses and the changing fire regime of southern California, we
consider type conversion and the habitat effects of altered fire
regime, particularly from increased frequency of fire, to be a
significant threat to M. viminea's habitat both now and in the
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
Monardella viminea continues to be threatened by habitat loss and
degradation by altered hydrological regimes that can result in
uncontrollable flood events. Habitat of this species is also threatened
by an unnatural fire regime resulting from manmade disturbance and
activities, which in turn can cause invasion of the area by nonnative
plants. Of the seven natural and four transplanted occurrences, those
that are in areas where continued development is expected to occur may
experience further alterations to hydrology and fire regimes. These
threats to habitat are occurring now and are expected to continue into
the foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
To our knowledge, no commercial use exists for Monardella viminea.
The listing rule suggested that professional and private botanical
collecting could exacerbate the extirpation threat to the species due
to botanists favoring rare or declining species (63 FR 54938; October
13, 1998). However, we are not currently aware of any interest by
botanists in collecting M. viminea. Therefore, we do not believe that
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes constitutes a threat to this species now or in the
foreseeable future.
C. Disease or Predation
Neither disease nor predation was known to be a threat affecting
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998) at the
time of listing. Volunteers have since noted grazing impacts to
occurrences of M. viminea in Lopez Canyon (Kelly and Burrascano 2001,
p. 5). However, this occurrence is the only documented location where
grazing has occurred, and impacts were minimal. Therefore, based on the
best available scientific and commercial information, neither disease
nor herbivory constitute threats to M. viminea now or in the
foreseeable future.
[[Page 33888]]
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
At the time of listing, regulatory mechanisms that provided some
protection for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea that apply to
Monardella viminea included: (1) The Act in cases where M. viminea co-
occurred with a Federally listed species; (2) the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA); (3) the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); (4) implementation of conservation plans pursuant to
California's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act; (5) land
acquisition and management by Federal, State, or local agencies, or by
private groups and organizations; and (6) local laws and regulations.
The listing rule analyzed the potential level of protection provided by
these regulatory mechanisms (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998).
Currently, Monardella linoides ssp. viminea is listed as endangered
under the Act (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). Provisions for its
protection and recovery are outlined in sections 4, 7, 9 and 10 of the
Act. This law is the primary mechanism for protecting M. viminea,
which, as part of the original listed entity, currently retains
protection under the Act. However, the protections afforded to M.
viminea under the Act as part of M. linoides ssp. viminea, the
currently listed entity, would continue to apply only if we determine
to retain listed status for M. viminea. Therefore, for purposes of our
analysis, we do not include the Act as an existing regulatory mechanism
that protects M. viminea. We do note that M. viminea would likely
continue to receive protection indirectly through habitat conservation
plans (HCPs) approved under section10 of the Act and Natural Community
Conservation Plans (NCCPs) approved under the State of California that
will cover M. viminea even if the species is not Federally listed.
Federal Protections
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for
projects they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Council on
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-
1518) state that in their environmental impact statements agencies
shall include a discussion on the environmental impacts of the various
project alternatives (including the proposed action), any adverse
environmental effects which cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of resources involved (40 CFR 1502). The NEPA
itself is a disclosure law that provides an opportunity for the public
to submit comments on a particular project and propose other
conservation measures that may directly benefit listed species;
however, it does not impose substantive environmental mitigation
obligations on Federal agencies. Any such measures are typically
voluntary in nature and are not required by the statute. Activities on
non-Federal lands are also subject to NEPA if there is a Federal nexus.
Sikes Act
In 1997, section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a(a)) was
revised by the Sikes Act Improvement Act to authorize the Secretary of
Defense to implement a program to provide for the conservation and
rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations. To do
so, the Department of Defense was required to work with Federal and
State fish and wildlife agencies to prepare an integrated natural
resources management plan (INRMP) for each facility with significant
natural resources. The INRMPs provide a planning tool for future
improvements; provide for sustainable multipurpose use of the
resources, including activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, and
non-consumptive uses; and allow some public access to military
installations. At MCAS Miramar and other military installations, INRMPs
provide direction for project development and for the management,
conservation, and rehabilitation of natural resources, including M.
viminea and its habitat.
Approximately 70 percent of the remaining habitat for Monardella
viminea occurs within MCAS Miramar. The Marine Corps completed an INRMP
(2006-2010) with the advice of the Service (Gene Stout and Associates
2006, p. ES-2). The 2011-2014 INRMP is expected to be published by the
military in the upcoming weeks. This new INRMP continues to benefit the
species by spatially and temporally protecting known populations on
MCAS Miramar, most of which are not fragmented. Over 99 percent of all
M. viminea occurrences on the base occur in Type I or II management
areas, where conservation of listed species, including M. viminea, is a
priority (Gene Stout and Associates 2006, pp. 5-2, 5-5). MCAS Miramar
manages invasive species, a significant threat to M. viminea, in
compliance with Executive Order 13112, which states that Federal
agencies must provide for the control of invasive species (Gene Stout
and Associates 2006, p. 7-3). Invasive species management is a must-
fund project to be carried out annually, following guidelines
established in the National Invasive Species Management Plan (Gene
Stout and Associates 2006, p. 7-7). This plan mandates control measures
for invasive species through a combination of measures including
pesticides and mechanical removal (National Invasive Species Council
2001, p. 37), thus providing a benefit by addressing type conversion
that results following fires (see Factor A above). It also provides
wildland fire management, including creation of fuelbreaks, a
prescribed burning plan, and research on the effects of wildfire on
local habitat types (Gene Stout and Associates 2006, pp. 7-8--7-9). As
a result, MCAS Miramar is addressing threats related to the potential
stress of fire on individual plants (see Factor E). Despite the
benefits to M. viminea provided through the INRMP, the species
continues to decline on MCAS Miramar, due likely to the synergistic
effects of flood, reduced shrub numbers, and exotic species
encroachment (type conversion) following the 2003 Cedar wildfire
(Tierra Data 2011, p. 26).
State and Local Regulations
California's Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) and Endangered Species
Act (CESA)
Under provisions of NPPA (Division 2, chapter 10 section 1900 et
seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG code)) and CESA
(Division 3, chapter 1.5, section 2050 et seq. of CFG code), the CDFG
Commission listed Monardella linoides ssp. viminea as endangered in
1979. Currently, the State of California recognizes the State-listed
entity as M. viminea.
Both the CESA and NPPA include prohibitions forbidding the ``take''
of State endangered and listed species (Chapter 10, Section 1908 and
Chapter 1.5, Section 2080, CFG code). With regard to prohibitions of
unauthorized take under NPPA, landowners are exempt from this
prohibition for plants to be taken in the process of habitat
modification. When landowners are notified by the State that a rare or
endangered plant is growing on their land, the landowners are required
to notify CDFG 10 days in advance of changing land use in order to
allow salvage of listed plants. Sections 2081(b) and (c) of CESA allow
CDFG to issue incidental take permits for State-listed threatened
species if:
(1) The authorized take is incidental to an otherwise lawful
activity;
(2) The impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully
mitigated;
[[Page 33889]]
(3) The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the
impacts of the authorized take are roughly proportional in extent to
the impact of the taking of the species, maintain the applicant's
objectives to the greatest extent possible, and are capable of
successful implementation;
(4) Adequate funding is provided to implement the required
minimization and mitigation measures and to monitor compliance with and
the effectiveness of the measures; and
(5) Issuance of the permit will not jeopardize the continued
existence of a State-listed species.
The relationship between the NPPA and CESA has not been clearly
defined under state law. The NPPA, which has been characterized as an
exception to the take prohibitions of CESA, exempts a number of
activities from regulation including: clearing of land for agricultural
practices or fire control measures; removal of endangered or rare
plants when done in association with an approved timber harvesting
plan, or mining work performed pursuant to Federal or State mining
laws, or by a public utility providing service to the public; or when a
landowner proceeds with changing the use on their land in a manner that
could result in take, provided the landowner notifies CDFG at least 10
days in advance of the change. These exemptions indicate that CESA and
NPPA may be inadequate to protect Monardella viminea and its habitat,
including from activities such as development/urbanization, altered
hydrology or fuel modification.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources
Code 21000-21177) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387)
require State and local agencies to identify the significant
environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those
impacts, if feasible. The CEQA applies to projects proposed to be
undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government
agencies, and the lead agency must complete the environmental review
process required by CEQA, including conducting an initial study to
identify the environmental impacts of the project and determine whether
the identified impacts are significant; if significant impacts are
determined, then an environmental impact report must be prepared to
provide State and local agencies and the general public with detailed
information on the potentially significant environmental effects
(California Environmental Resources Evaluation System 2010).
``Thresholds of Significance'' are comprehensive criteria used to
define environmental significant impacts based on quantitative and
qualitative standards and include impacts to biological resources such
as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or the Service; or any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or
Service (CEQA Handbook, Appendix G, 2010). Defining these significance
thresholds helps ensure a ``rational basis for significance
determinations'' and provides support for the final determination and
appropriate revisions or mitigation actions to a project in order to
develop a mitigated negative declaration rather than an environmental
impact report (Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1994, p. 5).
Under CEQA, projects may move forward if there is a statement of
overriding consideration. If significant effects are identified, the
lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation through changes in
the project or to decide that overriding considerations make mitigation
infeasible (CEQA section 21002). Protection of listed species through
CEQA is, therefore, dependent upon the discretion of the lead agency
involved.
California's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act
The NCCP program is a cooperative effort between the State of
California and numerous private and public partners with the goal of
protecting habitats and species. An NCCP identifies and provides for
the regional or area-wide protection of plants, animals, and their
habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity.
The program began in 1991, under the State's NCCP Act (CFG Code 2800-
2835). The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural
communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land
uses (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/). Regional NCCPs provide
protection to Federally listed species, and often unlisted species, by
conserving native habitats upon which the species depend. Many NCCPs
are developed in conjunction with HCPs prepared pursuant to the Act.
The City and County of San Diego Subarea Plans under the MSCP are
discussed below.
City of San Diego and County of San Diego Subarea Plans under the
Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP)
The MSCP is a sub-regional HCP and NCCP made up of several subarea
plans that have been in place for more than a decade. Under the
umbrella of the MSCP, each of the 12 participating jurisdictions is
required to prepare a subarea plan that implements the goals of the
MSCP within that particular jurisdiction. The sub-regional MSCP covers
582,243 ac (235,625 ha) within the county of San Diego. Habitat
conservation plans and multiple species conservation plans approved
under section 10 of the Act are intended to protect covered species by
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts.
The MSCP Subarea Plan for the City of San Diego includes Monardella
viminea (denominated as M. linoides ssp. viminea) as a covered species.
The City's subarea plan designates land to be set aside for a
biological preserve (City of San Diego 1997, p. 1-1). As of January
2011, less than 20 percent of all M. viminea occurrences were in the
City of San Diego MSCP plan area (Service 2008, p. 10); the majority of
the other occurrences are on lands owned by MCAS Miramar, with small
numbers of clumps occurring on private and county-owned lands. Almost
all occurrences that occur within the City of San Diego's MSCP Subarea
Plan area have been protected in MSCP reserves and are annually
monitored (City of San Diego 2010, p. 1). However, the management plan
for the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan has not been finalized;
thus long-term management and monitoring provisions for this plant are
not in place. Although management needs are frequently identified for
M. viminea, the actions are not carried out on a regular basis to
decrease threats to the plants, such as presence of nonnative
vegetation and altered hydrology.
Within the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, further protections
are afforded by the Environmentally Sensitive Lands ordinance (ESL).
The ESL provides protection for sensitive biological resources
(including Monardella viminea and its habitat), by ensuring that
development occurs ``in a manner that protects the overall quality of
the resources and the natural and topographic character of the area,
encourages a sensitive form of development, retains biodiversity and
interconnected habitats, maximizes physical and visual public access to
and along the shoreline, and reduces hazards due to flooding in
specific areas
[[Page 33890]]
while minimizing the need for construction of flood control
facilities,'' thus providing protection against alteration of
hydrology, a significant threat to M. viminea. The ESL was designed to
act as an implementing tool for the City of San Diego Subarea Plan
(City of San Diego 1997, p. 98).
The County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan covers 252,132 ac
(102,035 ha) of unincorporated county lands in the southwestern portion
of the MSCP plan area. Only two percent of Monardella viminea habitat
occurs on County lands. The entirety of this habitat is included within
the Sycamore Canyon Preserve established under the County of San Diego
MSCP Subarea Plan. In 2009, a management plan was published for the
preserve, with monitoring anticipated to begin in 2013. The plan
specifically addresses M. viminea through removal of nonnative
vegetation, habitat restoration, and implementation of a managed fire
regime with a priority of protecting biological resources (DPR 2009,
pp. 71, 76-77). Additionally, the plan mandates management to address
the ``natural history of the species and to reduce the risk of
catastrophic fire,'' possibly including prescribed fire (DPR 2009, p.
71); these measures address the stressor of fire on individual plants
(Factor E) and the threat of type conversion due to frequent fire
(Factor A).
Summary of Factor D
In determining whether Monardella viminea should be retained as a
listed species under the Act, we analyze the adequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms without regard to current protections afforded
under the Act. The majority (greater than 70 percent) of M. viminea
occurrences are on MCAS Miramar. The base has developed and is
implementing an INRMP under the Sikes Act to protect these occurrences
(Factor E) and is addressing threats from type conversion due to
frequent fire (Factor A). However, notwithstanding the benefit to M.
viminea provided by the INRMP, the synergistic effects of flood,
reduced shrub numbers, frequent fire, and nonnative species
encroachment are resulting in a decline of M. viminea on the base
(Factor E). While the INRMP does not eliminate threats to the species
from megafire, we do not believe megafire impacts are susceptible to a
regulatory fix.
The majority of Monardella viminea occurrences outside of MCAS
Miramar are located within land owned by the City of San Diego, and
they receive protection under the City of San Diego's MSCP Subarea
Plan, which was approved under CESA and NCCP Act. The City of San
Diego's MSCP Subarea plan provides protective mechanisms for M. viminea
for proposed projects; these protective mechanisms are intended to
address potential impacts that could threaten the species, such as
development or actions that could result in altered hydrology. One such
plan was developed for the city-owned land within West Sycamore Canyon.
This land, a total of 21 ac (9 ha), was included within the development
project entitled Sycamore Estates. This plan included monitoring of M.
viminea occurrences within West Sycamore Canyon and provisions to
prevent altered hydrology to areas containing M. viminea through
construction of mechanisms such as silt fences to prevent erosion and
subsequent alteration of channel structure (T&B Planning Consultants
2001, pp. 136, 166). However, Sycamore Estates was never completed (see
Factor A), and no monitoring has taken place in West Sycamore Canyon.
Therefore, the plan addressing construction on Sycamore Estates is not
currently protecting M. viminea.
The City of San Diego Subarea Plan also includes provisions for
monitoring and management through development of location-specific
management plans for preserve land. However, the City of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan has not developed final monitoring and management plans
for M. viminea. As a result, even though occurrences of M. viminea are
monitored on a yearly basis and management needs for M. viminea habitat
are identified, conservation measures to ameliorate immediate and
significant threats to the species from nonnative species and
alteration of hydrology are not actively being implemented because the
management plans are not yet in place. With regards to lands covered by
the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan (two percent of the species'
habitat), regulatory mechanisms are in place to conserve and manage
Monardella viminea.
Despite the protections afforded to Monardella viminea under the
Sikes Act through the INRMP for MCAS Miramar and the protections
afforded under the City of San Diego and County of San Diego plans, we
conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms at this time are
inadequate to alleviate the threats to this species in the absence of
the protections afforded by the Act.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Trampling
Trampling was identified as a threat to Monardella linoides ssp.
viminea in the listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). Trampling
of M. viminea occurs via human travel through the habitat of the
species. This factor has not been quantified, and to date is only
suspected to be a threat to M. viminea via direct mortality and
increasing rates of erosion (Service 2008, p. 11). Trampling on private
lands cannot currently be controlled and could impact populations
located on private lands; however, few occurrences are located on
private lands, and we have no evidence of trampling-related mortality.
Therefore, we do not consider trampling to be a significant threat
across the range of the species.
Nonnative Plant Species
The listing rule identifies nonnative plants as a threat to
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998); this
threat is ongoing for the occurrences of the listed entity now
considered to be M. viminea. San Diego County habitats have been
altered by invasion of nonnative species (Soule et al. 1992, p. 43).
Nonnative grasses, which frequently out-compete native species for
limited resources and grow more quickly, can smother seedling and
mature M. viminea and prevent natural growth (Rebman and Dossey 2006a,
p. 12). Nonnative plants also have the potential to lower water tables
and alter rates of sedimentation and erosion by altering soil
chemistry, nutrient levels, and the physical structure of soil. As
such, they can often out-compete native species such as M. viminea
(Kassebaum 2007, pers. comm.). Nonnative plants also alter frequencies,
size, and intensity of fires (flame duration and length, soil
temperature during a fire, and after-effects of long-term porosity and
soil glassification, in which high heat causes silica particles in the
soil to fuse together to form an impermeable barrier) (Vitousek et al.
1997, pp. 8-9; Arno and Fielder 2005, p. 19).
When the processes of natural disturbance, such as fire regime and
normal storm flow events, are altered, native and nonnative plants can
overcome otherwise suitable habitat for Monardella viminea (Kassebaum
2007, pers. comm.). At least four occurrences of M. viminea are
believed to have been extirpated since listing due in part to invasion
of native and nonnative plant species (CNDDB 2010a; EOs 11, 12, 13, and
15). Nonnative plants are present throughout all canyons on MCAS
Miramar where M. viminea occurs, occupying areas that might instead be
colonized by M. viminea seedlings (Tierra Data 2011, p. 29). Areas
heavily invaded by nonnative grasses have fewer adult M. viminea plants
than areas
[[Page 33891]]
free from invasion, or feature adult plants that have been reduced in
size after the encroachment of nonnative species (Tierra Data 2011, p.
29). Additionally, one occurrence monitored by the City of San Diego
has undergone a rapid increase in nonnative plant cover, climbing from
26 percent in 2008 to 71 percent in 2010 (City of San Diego 2008, p. 1;
City of San Diego 2010, p. 11).
Due to the absence or alteration of the natural disturbance
processes within the range of Monardella viminea that has caused
competition for space and nutrients, increased fire intensity, and
extirpation of M. viminea occurrences since listing, we consider
nonnative plant species to be a significant factor threatening the
continued existence of the species, both now and in the foreseeable
future.
Small Population Size and Restricted Range
The listing rule identified the restricted range and small
population size of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea as threats. These
conditions increase the possibility of extinction due to chance events,
such as floods, fires, or drought, beyond the natural variability of
the ecosystem (Lande 1993, p. 912; 60 FR 40549, August 9, 1995). Chance
or stochastic events have occurred in the range of M. viminea, and it
is very possible that these events may continue to make M. viminea
vulnerable to extinction, because of M. viminea's small numbers and
limited range. Of the 20 occurrences of M. viminea known at the time of
listing, 5 had fewer than 100 individuals. None of the smallest five
populations were protected at the time of listing, and all have since
been extirpated due to competition with nonnative grasses,
construction, or unknown reasons (CNDDB 2010). As stated earlier, only
7 natural occurrences remain. Currently, despite their protection on
reserve lands, many of the largest occurrences with multiple clumps and
the healthiest-looking leaves and flowers are still declining in
number.
In particular, small population size makes it difficult for
Monardella viminea to persist while sustaining the impacts of fire,
altered hydrologic regimes, and competition with nonnative plants.
Prior to the 2008 5-year review, monitoring of the MCAS Miramar
occurrences indicated that the population had declined significantly
for unknown reasons that could not be clearly linked to the cumulative
impacts of fire, herbivory, or hydrological regimes (Rebman and Dossey
2006a, p. 14). Since the 2006 surveys by Rebman and Dossey at MCAS
Miramar, plants damaged in the 2003 fire have resprouted from the root.
Despite the fact that plants have resprouted, biological monitors at
MCAS Miramar report that the decline continues and the cause is
unknown, with 45 percent of the population on MCAS Miramar lost since
2002 (Kassebaum 2010, pers. comm.; Tierra Data 2011, p. 12). No
empirical information is readily available to estimate the rate of
population decrease or time to extinction for M. viminea; however, its
habitat and population have decreased since the time of listing.
Therefore, based on the best available scientific information, we
consider that small population size and the declining trend of M.
viminea exacerbate the threats attributable to other factors.
Fire
Although the habitat occupied by Monardella viminea is dependent
upon some form of disturbance to reset succession processes (such as
periodic fire and scouring floods), we considered whether megafire
events have the potential to severely impact or eliminate populations
by killing large numbers of individual plants, their underground
rhizomes (stems), and the soil seed bank. Also, severe fire could leave
the soil under hydrophobic conditions, in which the soil becomes water-
repellant, often resulting in plants receiving an inadequate amount of
water (Agee 1996, pp. 157-158; Keane et al. 2002, p. 8; Keeley 2001, p.
87; Arno and Fiedler 2005, p. 19).
Recently, San Diego County has been impacted by multiple large fire
events, a trend that is expected to continue. A model by Snyder et al.
(2002, p. 9-3) suggests higher average temperatures for every month in
every part of California, which would create drier, more combustible
fuel types. Also, Miller and Schlegel (2006, p. 6) suggest that Santa
Ana conditions (characterized by hot dry winds and low humidity) may
significantly increase during fire season under global climate change
scenarios. Small escaped fires have the potential to turn into large
fires due to wind, weather conditions of temperature and humidity, lack
of prescribed fires to control fuels, invasive vegetation, and
inadequate wildfire control/prevention. For example, the October 2007
Harris fire in San Diego County burned 20,000 acres (ac) (8,094
hectares (ha)) within 4 hours of ignition (California Department of
Forestry 2008, p. 57). Another fire near Orange, California, turned
into a large size-class fire in less than 12 hours, and an unattended
campfire set off the June 2007 Angora fire near Lake Tahoe in northern
California, which spread 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) in its first 3 hours,
and burned over 3,000 ac (1,214 ha) (USDA 2007, p. 1).
A narrow endemic such as Monardella viminea could be especially
sensitive to megafire events. One large fire could impact all or a
large proportion of the entire area where the species is found, as
occurred in the 2003 Cedar Fire, where 98 percent of occurrences on
MCAS Miramar and M. viminea clumps in the privately owned portions of
Sycamore Canyon burned. However, despite the overlap of the Cedar Fire
with M. viminea occurrences on MCAS Miramar, the decline of the burned
occurrences of M. viminea was not as severe as initially expected, as
plants were later able to resprout from the root. Additionally, new
juveniles and seedlings documented by the 2009 survey occurred
primarily on lands burned by the 2003 Cedar Fire (Tierra Data 2011, p.
16).
Given the increased frequency of megafires within Southern
California ecosystems, and the inability of regulatory mechanisms to
prevent or control megafire, we find that megafire does have the
potential to impact occurrences of Monardella viminea. However, given
M. viminea's persistence through past fires and its ability to recover
from direct impact by fires, we do not find that megafire is a
significant threat to individual M. viminea plants now, nor is likely
to become a significant threat in the foreseeable future. However, as
noted in the Factor A discussion above, we do find that type conversion
due to altered fire regime and megafire are threats to the habitat that
supports M. viminea.
Climate Change
A broad consensus exists among scientists that the earth is in a
warming trend caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide (IPCC 2007). Researchers have documented climate-related
changes in California (Croke et al. 1998, pp. 2128, 2130; Breshears et
al. 2005, p. 15144). Predictions for California indicate prolonged
drought and other climate-related changes will continue in the future
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 8-10; Lenihen et al. 2003, p. 1667; Hayhoe et
al. 2004, p. 12422; Breshears et al. 2005, p. 15144; Seager et al.
2007, p. 1181; IPCC 2007, p. 9). Models are not yet powerful enough to
predict what will happen in localized regions, such as southern
California, but many scientists believe warmer, wetter winters and
warmer, drier summers will occur within the next century (Field et al.
1999, pp. 2-3, 20). The impacts on
[[Page 33892]]
species like Monardella viminea, which depend on specific hydrological
regimes, may be more severe (Graham 1997, p. 2).
Since approximately the time of listing in 1998, an extended
drought in the region (San Diego County Water Authority 2010, p. 2)
created unusually dry habitat conditions. From 2000 to 2009, at one of
the closer precipitation gauges to the species' range (Lake Cuyamaca,
San Diego County, California), 8 of 10 years had precipitation
significantly below normal (San Diego County Water Authority 2010, p.
2). This extended drought has cumulatively affected moisture regimes,
riparian habitat, and vegetative conditions in and around suitable
habitat for Monardella viminea, and thus increased the stress on
individual plants. As stated above, predictions indicate that future
climate change may lead to similar, if not more severe, drought
conditions.
The predicted future drought could impact the dynamic of the
streambeds where Monardella viminea grows. Soil moisture and
transportation of sediments by downstream flow have been identified as
key habitat features required by M. viminea. The species is
characterized as being associated with areas of standing water after
rainfall (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 426). Monitors for the City of San
Diego have observed decreased plant health and increased dormancy of
Monardella species in years with low rainfall (City of San Diego 2003,
p. 3; City of San Diego 2004, p. 3). Specific analyses of population
trends as correlated to rainfall are difficult due to inconsistent
plant count methods (City of San Diego 2004, p. 67).
Additionally, drier conditions may result in increased fire
frequency. As discussed under Factors A and E, this could make the
ecosystems in which Monardella viminea currently grows more vulnerable
to the threats of subsequent erosion and invasive species. In a
changing climate, conditions could change in a way that would allow
both native and nonnative plants to invade the habitat where M. viminea
currently occurs (Graham 1997, p. 10).
While we recognize that climate change and increased drought
associated with climate change are important issues with potential
effects to listed species and their habitats, the best available
scientific information does not currently give evidence specific enough
for us to formulate accurate predictions regarding its effects to
particular species, including Monardella viminea. Therefore, we do not
consider global climate change a current threat to M. viminea, now or
in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
Based on a review of the best available scientific and commercial
data regarding trampling, nonnative plant species, megafire, climate
change, and small population size and restricted range, we found that
nonnative plant species pose a significant threat to Monardella
viminea. Additionally, the small population size and restricted range
of M. viminea could exacerbate threats to the species. We found no
other evidence that trampling or other natural or manmade factors pose
a significant threat to M. viminea, either now or in the foreseeable
future. We conclude based on the best available scientific information
that M. viminea could be affected by fire impacts associated with the
death of individual plants; however, we do not consider this a
significant threat to the continued existence of the species. Finally
with regard to the direct and indirect effects of climate change on
individual M. viminea plants and its habitat, we have no information at
this point to demonstrate that predicted climate changes poses a
significant threat to the species either now or in the foreseeable
future.
Proposed Determination--Monardella viminea
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Monardella viminea. As described above, we find that threats
attributable to Factor A (The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range) represent
significant threats to M. viminea, particularly through severe
alteration of hydrology in Carroll, Lopez, and San Clemente Canyons.
Additionally, type conversion and habitat degradation due to frequent
fire represent a significant and immediate threat to the species across
its range. We also find that, in the absence of the Act, other existing
regulatory mechanisms as described under Factor D would not provide
protections adequate to alleviate threats to M. viminea. Finally, we
find that threats attributable to Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence) represent significant
threats to the species throughout its range, including impacts from
nonnative plant species invading canyons where M. viminea exists.
Additionally, the small population size of M. viminea could exacerbate
the threats to the species. Furthermore, the synergistic effects of
flood, reduced shrub numbers, frequent fire, and nonnative species
encroachment pose an increased risk to the species, resulting in
continued population decline such as that seen on MCAS Miramar in
recent years.
When the species was listed in 1998, there were 18 extant
occurrences of what we now consider to be Monardella viminea;
currently, there are only 7 known natural occurrences of M. viminea.
All seven of these occurrences have continued to decline since listing
and since the most recent (2008) 5-year review. Since the recent
taxonomic revision of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea into two
separate species, we now know that both the number of clumps and the
limited geographic range of M. viminea are substantially less than
originally thought, as two of the occurrences at time of listing are
now considered to be M. stoneana. As discussed above, natural
occurrences of M. viminea occur in only six watersheds in a very
limited area of San Diego County. Transplanted occurrences occur in two
additional canyons; however, over the past 3 years, survival of three
of the transplanted sites is below 20 percent, with the fourth at only
44 percent (Ince 2010, p. 8). Additionally, the most recent surveys
from MCAS Miramar, which holds the majority of the largest occurrences,
have shown a rapid decline of the species over the past 7 years (Tierra
Data 2011, p. 12).
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' Given the rapid population decline
(particularly the decline of 45 percent of the population on MCAS
Miramar since 2002), the species' limited range and small population
size, and continuing significant threats, we find that Monardella
viminea is in danger of extinction throughout its range. Therefore,
endangered status under the Act continues to be warranted for M.
viminea.
Status Review--Monardella stoneana
Species Description
Monardella stoneana is a perennial herb or subshrub in the
Lamiaceae (mint family) with a woody base and aromatic leaves. The
sparsely pubescent multiple stems bear sparsely gland-dotted broadly
lanceolate to lance-ovate leaves, and dense, terminal clusters of pale
[[Page 33893]]
pink flowers. The leaves are 0.6-1.2 in (15-30 mm) long by 0.2-0.4 in
(4-10 mm) wide, and the middle flower bracts are 0.3-0.4 in (7-10 mm)
long (Elvin and Sanders 2003, pp. 426, 431-432). Monardella stoneana
often grows together in clumps of one to four individual plants. As the
number of plants within a clump cannot be reliably distinguished
without exposing the roots, the species is usually counted by clumps
rather than as individual plants.
Habitat
Monardella stoneana occurs in cypress forest and chaparral habitats
on banks of ephemeral washes in canyons where surface water flows for
usually less than 48 hours after a rain event (Elvin and Sanders 2003,
p. 430; SANDAG 1995). It is often found with Baccharis sarothroides
(broom baccharis) and Cupressus (cypress) species (CNDDB 2010b). It is
most commonly found in canyon bottoms and north-facing slopes, and
along bends of meandering drainages (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 426).
Many of the streams where M. stoneana grows hold water for up to
several months during the rainy season (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p.
426). Monardella stoneana is found on rockier substrate than M.
viminea, often between spaces in stones or boulders along the creek bed
(Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 426; City of San Diego 2005, p. 3; City of
San Diego 2008, p. 4).
The chaparral habitat that Monardella stoneana favors benefits from
small or managed fires that clear out dead or encroaching scrub
vegetation and reduce nonnative species (Minnich 1983, p. 1290).
Chaparral is more resistant to fire than coastal sage scrub, due to
strong recruitment and effective germination after repeated fire events
(Keeley 1987, p. 439; Tyler 1995, p. 1009). As with M. viminea, there
are two ways in which fire can negatively impact M. stoneana. First, an
increased frequency of fires of all sizes can result in type conversion
or invasion of nonnative grasses into chaparral habitats that can choke
out native vegetation, including shrubs associated with M. stoneana.
This is a habitat-based effect. Second, large or unmanaged fires
(megafire) can be a particular threat to a narrow endemic species like
M. stoneana because a single megafire could eliminate a large
proportion of individual plants within the extant range of the species.
Rebman and Dossey (2006b, p. 2) reported that M. viminea is capable of
resprouting after fire; we expect the same to be true of M. stoneana.
Additional information is needed on the role of fire in M. stoneana
habitat, particularly within riparian portions of canyons, and the
effects of fire on clumps of M. stoneana. Please see our request for
information in the Public Comments section above.
Life History
Very little is known about the germination and establishment of
Monardella stoneana. Mature plants of the closely related M. viminea
flower readily, with inflorescences persisting for 10 to 12 weeks
(Elvin and Sanders 2003, pp. 430-431). Plants are short-lived
perennials producing a new cohort of aerial stems each year from a
persisting perennial root structure. Plants of this species are not
known to be rhizomatous; however, root masses may become separated over
time, resulting in adjacent genetically identical but separate plants.
No pollination studies are known to exist for Monardella stoneana;
however, other Monardella taxa are visited by butterfly and bee species
(Elvin 2003, p. 2). Bees collected from the closely related M. linoides
include wasp-like bees (Hylaeus sp.), mason bees (Osmia spp. or
Chalicodoma spp.), and miner bees (Anthophora spp.) (Hurd 1979, pp.
1762, 1765, 2042, 2073, and 2164). Successful reproduction of flowering
plants depends on pollinator abundance and effectiveness (Javorek et
al. 2002, p. 350). Therefore, pollinator movement and availability
should be considered when assessing likely population distributions and
survival, and habitat needs of M. stoneana.
Geographic Range and Status
Monardella stoneana is a geographically narrow endemic restricted
to southwestern San Diego County, in the United States, and to northern
portions of Baja California, Mexico (Figure 1). All eight extant
occurrences and one extirpated occurrence (Table 1) are found in the
vicinity of Otay Mesa, Otay Mountain, and Tecate Peak (CNDDB 2010b).
Monardella stoneana occurs on lands owned by the BLM, the City of San
Diego, the State of California, the CDFG, and lands under private
ownership. The use of the word occurrence, as described in the
Geographic Range and Status section for M. viminea, also applies to M.
stoneana.
A total of two occurrences now considered Monardella stoneana were
known and extant at the time of listing (63 FR 54938; October 13,
1998). According to the most recent report from the CNDDB, eight
occurrences of M. stoneana are currently extant, with additional clumps
easily visible in Mexico just across the border from California (CNDDB
2010b, EOs 7, 8). Due to the rarity of juveniles of this species and
the closely related M. viminea, and the fact that most occurrences were
discovered less than 5 years after listing, we believe all occurrences
were extant at the time of listing.
There is little information available on the population trends of
most Monardella stoneana occurrences since listing. Only two EOs
receive regular monitoring, EO 1 (Marron Valley) and EO 5 (Buschalaugh
Cove). The Buschalaugh Cove occurrence, located on land owned by the
City of San Diego, declined from two clumps in 2004 to one clump in
2006, and then no clumps in 2008 (City of San Diego 2004, p. 3; City of
San Diego 2006, p. 8; City of San Diego 2008, p. 2). The last remaining
clump at this occurrence was burned as a result of the 2007 Harris Fire
and has not been located by monitors since that time (City of San Diego
2008, p. 2; City of San Diego 2009, p. 2; City of San Diego 2010, p.
256). The Marron Valley occurrence, also located on land owned by the
City of San Diego, appears to have declined slightly from 120
individuals in 2002, to 95 in 2010 (City of San Diego 2010a, p. 238;
City of San Diego 2010b, p. 2). However, the City of San Diego
acknowledges that its monitoring methods are not always consistent
across years (City of San Diego 2005, pp. 2-3), so the differences
could be an artifact of inconsistencies in monitoring. Since 2005, the
population has remained steady at 95 plants (City of San Diego 2010b,
p. 2).
Little information is available on the other occurrences. Reports
from the CNDDB state that the Otay Lakes occurrence declined from 200
clumps in 1989, to 25 plants in 2005 (EO 4; CNDDB 2010b, p. 4); these
are the only two surveys we are aware of for this occurrence. According
to the CNDDB, all other occurrences are still extant (CNDDB 2010b). No
surveys have been conducted in Mexico; the only known occurrences in
Mexico are those visible across the border, as discussed above.
Summary of Factors Affecting Monardella stoneana
As stated above in the Summary of Factors Affecting Monardella
viminea section, the original listing rule for the M. linoides ssp.
viminea contained a discussion of these five factors, as did the 2008
5-year review. However, the reader must bear in mind that both of these
documents included discussions regarding M. linoides ssp. viminea,
without separation, or recognition of M. stoneana or M. viminea. Below,
each of
[[Page 33894]]
the five listing factors is discussed for M. stoneana specifically.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Urbanization/Development
The original listing rule identified urban development as one of
the most important threats to Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR
54938; October 13, 1998). However, the urbanization and development
threats described in the 1998 listing rule apply only to those
occurrences now attributable to M. viminea.
Monardella stoneana occurs almost entirely on publicly owned land
managed by the BLM (approximately 34 percent), CDFG (approximately 55
percent), or City of San Diego (approximately 7 percent). These
occurrences are protected from habitat destruction or modification due
to urban development because they are conserved and managed within the
BLM's Otay Mountain Wilderness or the City of San Diego's and CDFG's
preserves under the MSCP; this contrasts with M. viminea occurrences
conserved by the City of San Diego that do not have management plans
(see also Factor D discussion below and Factor D discussion for M.
viminea).
The Monardella stoneana occurrences located on the two sections of
land owned by the City of San Diego have been set aside for
conservation purposes and are undevelopable. The one occurrence located
on private land at the Otay Lakes site is contained within lands set
aside as part of the Otay Ranch Preserve, and thus protected from
development. Based on the lack of threats from development on land
currently occupied by M. stoneana, we do not believe that urban
development is a threat to this species now, nor will it be in the
foreseeable future, within the United States. While we are not aware of
any proposed development in areas occupied by M. stoneana in Mexico, we
are also not aware of the extent of the species' distribution in
Mexico. Thus, the best scientific evidence does not support
urbanization as a significant threat to M. stoneana in Mexico.
Sand and Gravel Mining
Sand and gravel mining activities were identified as threats to
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea in the 1998 listing rule and the
recent 5-year review (63 FR 54938, October 13, 1998; Service 2008). As
was the case for urban development, the threats described in the 1998
listing rule apply only to those occurrences now attributable to M.
viminea. We are not aware of any historical mining that has impacted
occurrences of M. stoneana, nor are we aware of any plans for future
mining activities that may impact the species. Therefore, we believe
that sand and gravel mining activities do not pose a threat to the
continued persistence of M. stoneana.
Altered Hydrology
The original listing rule identified altered hydrology as a threat
to Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998).
Monardella viminea depends on a natural hydrological system to maintain
the secondary alluvial benches and streambeds on which it grows (Scheid
1985, pp. 30-31, 34-35); we believe the closely related M. stoneana
does as well. Upstream development can disrupt this regime by
increasing storm runoff, which can result in erosion of stream banks
and rocky cobble upon which M. stoneana grow. Floods also have the
potential to wash away plants much larger than M. stoneana, as has
occurred with M. viminea in Lopez Canyon (Kelly and Burrascano 2001,
pp. 2-3). On the other hand, decreased flows increase the possibility
of invasion by nonnative species into the creek bed, which can smother
seedling and mature plants and disrupt growth processes (Rebman and
Dossey 2006a, p. 12).
Habitat characteristics for Monardella stoneana have not been
described in detail, but, as with M. viminea, alteration of hydrology
may disrupt the natural processes and habitat characteristics that
support M. stoneana. However, M. stoneana reportedly ``most often grows
among boulders, stones, and in cracks of the bedrock of these
intermittent streams in rocky gorges'' (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p.
429), which suggests the habitat of M. stoneana may be largely
resistant to erosion events. More importantly, given the lack of urban
development in the Otay area where the majority of the plants occur,
substantial alteration of hydrology has not occurred to date and is not
expected to occur in the foreseeable future, and is thus not a threat
to M. stoneana.
Fire and Type Conversion
As discussed under Factor A for Monardella viminea, our
understanding of the role of fire in fire-dependent habitat has changed
since the time of listing, and the intensity of wildfire and frequency
of megafires has increased compared to historical regimes. However, M.
stoneana is associated with different habitat types than M. viminea.
While M. viminea occurs in coastal sage scrub and riparian scrub, M.
stoneana is found primarily in chaparral habitats.
Chaparral is more resistant to fire than coastal sage scrub, due to
strong recruitment and effective germination after repeated fire events
(Keeley 1987, p. 439; Tyler 1995, p. 1009). Chaparral is considered a
crown-fire ecosystem, meaning ecosystems which ``have endogenous
mechanisms for recovery that include resprouting from basal burrs and
long-lived seed banks that are stimulated to germinate by fire'' (Keane
et al. 2008, p. 702). These ecosystems are also resilient to high-
intensity burns (Keeley et al. 2008, p. 1545).
The fire regime in Baja California, Mexico, where some Monardella
stoneana occurs, has not undergone the same fire suppression activities
that have occurred in the United States. Some researchers claim that
the fire regime of chaparral growing in Baja California is thus not
affected by megafires due to a lack of fire suppression activities
(Minnich and Chou 1997, Minnich 2001). Nevertheless, Keeley and Zedler
(2009, p. 86) believe that the fire regime in Baja California still
mirrors that of Southern California, similarly consisting of ``small
fires punctuated at periodic intervals by large fire events''
Therefore, we expect that impacts from fire in Baja California will be
similar to that in San Diego County.
Despite the resiliency of chaparral ecosystems to fire events,
chaparral, like coastal sage scrub, has been experiencing type
conversion in many areas in southern California. As with coastal sage
scrub, chaparral habitat is also being invaded by nonnative species
(Keeley 2006, p. 379). Nonnative grasses sprout more quickly after a
fire than chaparral species; this process is exacerbated by increased
fire intervals (Keeley 2001, pp. 84-85).
However, monitoring data from the MSCP Rare Plant Field Surveys by
the City of San Diego indicate that type conversion is not taking place
in chaparral habitats surrounding occurrences of Monardella stoneana.
For the past decade, the City of San Diego has been monitoring the
occurrences of M. stoneana on City lands, documenting their general
habitats and assessing disturbances and threats. In the City of San
Diego 2006 report, the Otay Lakes occurrence of M. stoneana (one clump
comprised of two individuals) was reported as having ``fair to good''
habitat, with monitors noting that threats occurred, such as
encroachment of tamarisk (Tamarisk spp.) and other nonnative plants (10
percent cover), and immigrant trails
[[Page 33895]]
(City of San Diego 2006, p. 8). This occurrence was lost after the 2006
survey, as described in the Geographic Range and Status section of this
proposed rule. Although the 2008 and 2010 survey reports for the Otay
Lakes site describe habitat disturbances such as type conversion due to
fire frequency and invasive species (particularly nonnative grasses)
(City of San Diego 2008, p. 2; City of San Diego 2010, p. 5), the
surveys also indicate that the percent cover of native species has
increased from 2008 to 2010 (from 23 to 42 percent), while the percent
cover of nonnative species has increased (from 30 to 44 percent) (City
of San Diego 2008, p. 1; City of San Diego 2010; p. 5). The most recent
survey report (2010) described the habitat at this site as ``fair to
good'' (City of San Diego 2010, p. 254).
For the Marron Valley site, the MSCP Rare Plant Field Surveys
conducted by the City of San Diego recorded 95 individuals of
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (now M. stoneana) in its 2006 survey
report, which was unchanged in survey results from 2008 to 2010 (City
of San Diego 2006, p. 1; City of San Diego 2008, p. 1; City of San
Diego 2009, p.1; City of San Diego, p. 5). Habitat at the Marron Valley
site was characterized as ``fair to good'' for 2008 through 2010 (City
of San Diego 2008, p. 2; City of San Diego 2010, p. 11). As with the
Otay Lakes location, type conversion due to frequent fire (Factor A)
and invasion of nonnative grasses was described as a disturbance/
stressor to the M. stoneana habitat (City of San Diego 2008, p. 2; City
of San Diego 2009, p. 2). Nonetheless, recent surveys indicate that the
percent ground cover by native species at the Marron Valley site (EO 1)
has increased from 2008 to 2010 (from 26 to 32 percent), while the
percent ground cover by nonnative species has also increased (from 15
to 22 percent) (City of San Diego 2008, p. 1; City of San Diego 2010;
p. 5). While no habitat assessment surveys are available for other M.
stoneana occurrences on Otay Mountain or near Tecate Peak, we would
expect the results to be similar to those from the Marron Valley and
Otay Lakes occurrences, as they occur in the same or similar habitat
types (SANDAG 1995).
Zedler et al. (1983, p. 816) concluded that short-interval fires on
Otay Mountain will lead to an increase in herbs and subshrubs given
their observation that the ``common pattern after chaparral fires, like
that of 1979 [on Otay Mountain], is for native and introduced annual
herbs to dominate for the 1st yr and then gradually decline as the
cover of shrub and subshrubs inceases [sic].'' Additionally, monitoring
data for Monardella stoneana has not recorded the same rapid increases
in nonnative vegetation as have occurred in habitat where M. viminea
grows (City of San Diego 2008, p. 1; City of San Diego 2009; p. 1).
While several M. viminea occurrences have been extirpated due to
invasion of nonnative vegetation (see Factor A discussion for M.
viminea above), no occurrences of M. stoneana have been similarly
affected.
Nonetheless, fire is still a stressor to Monardella stoneana
habitat and many other sensitive habitats throughout southern
California. To this end, on land owned and managed by the CDFG and BLM,
which contain approximately 88 percent of all occurrences of M.
stoneana, fire management is provided by CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE is an
emergency response and resource protection department. The CAL FIRE
protects lives, property, and natural resources from fire, and it
protects and preserves timberlands, wildlands, and urban forests. The
CAL FIRES's varied programs work together to plan protection strategies
incorporating concepts of the National Fire Plan, the California Fire
Plan, individual CAL FIRE Unit Fire Plans, and Community Wildfire
Protection Plans (CWPPs). Fire Plans outline the fire situation within
each CAL FIRE Unit, and CWPPs do the same for communities (CAL FIRE
2011a, p. 1; County of San Diego 2011a). Each plan identifies
prevention measures to reduce risks, informs and involves the local
communities in the area, and provides a framework to diminish potential
wildfire losses and implement all applicable fire management
regulations and policies (CAL FIRE 2011b; County of San Diego 2011a).
Planning includes other State, Federal, and local government agencies
as well as Fire Safe Councils (CAL FIRE 2011a, p. 1). Cooperative
efforts via contracts and agreements between State, Federal, and local
agencies are essential to respond to wildland fires (CAL FIRE 2011a, p.
1). Because of these types of cooperative efforts, fire engines and
crews from many different agencies may respond at the scene of an
emergency (CAL FIRE 2011a, p. 1); however, CAL FIRE typically takes the
lead with regard to planning for megafire prevention, management, and
suppression, and CAL FIRE is in charge of incident command during a
wildfire.
The San Diego County Fire Authority (SDCFA), local governments, and
CAL FIRE cooperatively protect 1.42 million ac (0.6 million ha) of land
with 54 fire stations throughout San Diego County (County of San Diego
2011b, p. 1). Wildfire management plans and associated actions can help
to reduce the impacts of type conversion due to frequent fire on
natural resources, including M. stoneana.
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, type conversion due to more frequent fire does not pose a
threat to M. stoneana or its associated plant communities now or in the
foreseeable future. The stress of frequent fire on M. stoneana is
further alleviated by management actions undertaken by CAL FIRE. More
intense fire, however, could pose a threat to individual clumps of M.
stoneana; impacts to clumps of M. stoneana from intense fire events are
discussed below under Factor E.
Summary of Factor A
We evaluated several factors with the potential to destroy, modify,
or curtail Monardella stoneana's habitat or range, including urban
development, sand and gravel mining, type conversion due to frequent
fire, and altered hydrology. Based on our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we conclude that M. stoneana is
not threatened by the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range, either now or in the
foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
To our knowledge, no commercial use exists for Monardella stoneana.
The 1998 listing rule for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea suggested
that professional and private botanical collecting could exacerbate the
extirpation threat to the subspecies due to botanists favoring rare or
declining species (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). However, we are not
currently aware of any interest by botanists in collecting M. stoneana.
Therefore, we do not believe that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes constitutes a threat
to this species, either now or in the foreseeable future.
C. Disease or Predation
Neither disease nor predation was known to be a threat affecting
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998) at the
time of listing. Data from the CNDDB (CNDDB 2010b) list grazing as a
potential threat for the M. stoneana occurrence located on the Otay
Ranch Preserve (EO 4). However, we have no other information
quantifying the extent of this grazing and its impact on this
occurrence. Therefore, based on the best available
[[Page 33896]]
scientific and commercial information, neither disease nor herbivory
constitutes a threat to M. stoneana, either now or in the foreseeable
future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
At the time of listing, regulatory mechanisms identified as
providing some level of protection for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
included: (1) The Act in cases where M. linoides ssp. viminea co-
occurred with a Federally listed species; (2) California Endangered
Species Act (CESA), as the species was listed as endangered in
California in 1979; (3) the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); (4) implementation of conservation plans pursuant to
California's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act; (5) local
laws and regulations; and (6) enforcement of Mexican laws (63 FR 54938;
October 13, 1998). The listing rule provided an analysis of the
potential level of protection provided by these regulatory mechanisms
(63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). With the proposed separation of M.
viminea from M. stoneana, we have re-evaluated current protective
regulatory mechanisms for M. stoneana, as discussed below. However, as
with M. viminea, protections afforded to M. stoneana under the Act as
part of M. linoides ssp. viminea, the currently listed entity, would
continue to apply only if we determine to retain listed status for M.
stoneana. Therefore, for purposes of our analysis, we do not include
the Act as an existing regulatory mechanism that protects M. stoneana.
We do note that M. stoneana would likely continue to receive protection
indirectly through habitat conservation plans approved under section 10
of the Act and Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) approved
under the State of California that will cover M. stoneana even if the
species is not Federally listed.
Federal Regulations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 for projects they fund,
authorize, or carry out. The Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1518) state that in
their environmental impact statements agencies shall include a
discussion on the environmental impacts of the various project
alternatives (including the proposed action), any adverse environmental
effects which cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of resources involved (40 CFR 1502). NEPA itself is a
disclosure law that provides an opportunity for the public to submit
comments on a particular project and propose other conservation
measures that may directly benefit listed species; however, it does not
impose substantive environmental mitigation obligations on Federal
agencies. Any such measures are typically voluntary in nature and are
not required by the statute. Activities on non-Federal lands are also
subject to NEPA if there is a Federal nexus.
Wilderness Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act
Monardella stoneana is a BLM-designated sensitive species (BLM
2010, p. 8). BLM-designated sensitive species are those species
requiring special management consideration to promote their
conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing
under the Act. This status makes conservation of M. stoneana a
management priority in the Otay Mountain Wilderness, in which
approximately 34 percent of M. stoneana occurs.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) governs the management of public lands under the
jurisdiction of the BLM. The legislative goals of FLPMA are to
establish public land policy; to establish guidelines for its [BLM's]
administration; and to provide for the management, protection,
development, and enhancement of the public lands. While FLPMA generally
directs that public lands be managed on the basis of multiple use, the
statute also directs that such lands be managed to ``protect the
quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental,
air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; * * * [
to] preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural
condition; [and to] * * * provide food and habitat for fish and
wildlife * * * .'' (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8)). Although the BLM has a
multiple-use mandate under the FLPMA which allows for grazing, mining,
and off-road vehicle use, the BLM also has the ability under the FLPMA
to establish and implement special management areas such as Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern, wilderness areas, research areas, and
so forth. BLM's South Coast Resource Management Plan covers the San
Diego County area.
The Otay Mountain Wilderness Act (1999) (Pub. L. 106-145) and BLM
management policies provide protection for all Monardella stoneana
occurring within the Otay Mountain Wilderness. The Otay Mountain
Wilderness Act provides that the Otay Mountain designated wilderness
area (i.e., Otay Mountain Wilderness; 18,500 ac (7,486 ha)) will be
managed in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964
(16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). The Wilderness Act of 1964 strictly limits
the use of wilderness areas, imposing restrictions on vehicle use, new
developments, chainsaws, mountain bikes, leasing, and mining, in order
to protect the natural habitats of the areas, maintain species
diversity, and enhance biological values. Lands acquired by BLM within
the Otay Mountain Wilderness boundaries become part of the designated
wilderness area and are managed in accordance with all provisions of
the Wilderness Act and regulations pertaining to the Wilderness Act.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Service, the BLM,
the County of San Diego, the City of San Diego, SANDAG, and the CDFG,
was issued in 1994 in conjunction with the development of the County of
San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP for cooperation in habitat
conservation planning and management (BLM 1994, pp. 1-8), and applies
to the Otay Mountain Wilderness because it falls entirely within the
boundary of this subarea plan. The MOU (BLM 1994, p. 3) details BLM's
commitment to manage lands to ``conform with'' the County of San Diego
Subarea Plan, which in turn requires protection of M. stoneana (see
Habitat Conservation Plans section below). Additionally, pursuant to
the MOU, private lands acquired by BLM will be evaluated for inclusion
within the designated wilderness area, and if the lands do not meet
wilderness qualifications, these lands would be included in the MSCP
conservation system (BLM 1994, p. 3). Therefore, protections provided
by the County of San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP (see Habitat
Conservation Plans section below) also apply to the Otay Mountain
Wilderness.
Protections for Monardella stoneana are also included in the BLM's
draft of the South Coast Resource Management Plan (SCRMP). Fire
management activities occur on Otay Mountain as part of the BLM's
current (1994) South Coast Resource Management Plan. In addition, at
some point in the future on an as-needed basis, additional brush
clearing and other fuels modifications, including burning, may occur.
The BLM is collaborating with the Service to revise the South Coast
Resource Management Plan, which covers the Otay Mountain Wilderness.
[[Page 33897]]
The draft revised plan specifically includes a goal of restoring fire
frequency to 50 years through fire prevention or suppression and
prescribed burns; once an area has not burned for 50 years, the plan
allows for annual prescribed burning of up to 500 ac (200 ha) in the
Otay Mountain Wilderness (BLM 2010, pp. 4-171--4-172). We believe the
management regime undertaken by BLM under the SCRMP is adequate to
protect the species and its habitat from the threat of type conversion
due to frequent fire (Factor A).
State and Local Regulations
Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) and California Endangered Species
Act (CESA)
Under provisions of NPPA (Division 2, chapter 10 section 1900 et
seq. of the CFG code) and CESA (Division 3, chapter 1.5, section 2050
et seq. of the CFG code), the CDFG Commission listed Monardella
linoides ssp. viminea as endangered in 1979. Currently, the State of
California recognizes the State-listed entity as M. viminea. No such
recognition is afforded M. stoneana under CESA. Though not listed under
CESA, the CDFG does recognize M. stoneana as a rare and imperiled plant
(lists S1.2 and 1B.2).
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources
Code 21000-21177) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387)
requires State and local agencies to identify the significant
environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those
impacts, if feasible. CEQA applies to projects proposed to be
undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government
agencies, and the lead agency must complete the environmental review
process required by CEQA, including conducting an Initial Study to
identify the environmental impacts of the project and determine whether
the identified impacts are significant; if significant impacts are
determined, then an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared to
provide State and local agencies and the general public with detailed
information on the potentially significant environmental effects
(California Environmental Resources Evaluation System, 2010).
``Thresholds of Significance'' are comprehensive criteria used to
define environmentally significant impacts based on quantitative and
qualitative standards and include impacts to biological resources such
as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or the Service; or any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or
Service (CEQA Handbook, Appendix G, 2010). Defining these significance
thresholds helps ensure a ``rational basis for significance
determinations'' and provides support for the final determination and
appropriate revisions or mitigation actions to a project in order to
develop a mitigated negative declaration rather than an Environmental
Impact Report (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 1994, p. 5).
Under CEQA, projects may move forward if there is a statement of
overriding consideration. If significant effects are identified, the
lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation through changes in
the project or to decide that overriding considerations make mitigation
infeasible (CEQA section 21002). Protection of listed species through
CEQA is, therefore, dependent upon the discretion of the lead agency
involved.
Otay Mountain Ecological Reserve
Fifty-five percent of Monardella stoneana occurrences are found on
the Otay Mountain Ecological Reserve, which is owned by the State of
California and managed by CDFG. The Reserve is managed in a manner
consistent with protections applying to the Otay Mountain Wilderness
Area (T. Nelson 2011, pers. comm.). In the case of Otay Mountain
Ecological Reserve, those measures include protection from development,
watershed alteration, and fire management. Fire management prevents
stress on M. stoneana habitat due to type conversion caused by too
frequent fires (Factor A).
The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act
The NCCP program is a cooperative effort between the State of
California and numerous private and public partners with the goal of
protecting habitats and species. An NCCP identifies and provides for
the regional or area-wide protection of plants, animals, and their
habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity.
The program began in 1991 under the State's NCCP Act (CFG Code 2800-
2835). The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural
communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land
uses (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/). Regional NCCPs provide
protection to Federally listed species by conserving native habitats
upon which the species depend. Many NCCPs are developed in conjunction
with HCPs prepared pursuant to the Act. The City and County of San
Diego Subarea Plans under the MSCP are discussed below under the
discussion of the Act.
San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP)
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea is a covered species under the San
Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) (City of San Diego
1997, Table 3-5). The most recent revision of the Rare Plant Monitoring
Review lists M. stoneana as a covered species and recognized narrow
endemic (McEachern et al. 2007, p. 33). The MSCP is a regional
conservation plan covering 582,000 acres in southwestern San Diego
County and is designed to protect sensitive species and habitats within
the boundaries of the plan. The MSCP covers 582,243 ac (235,625 ha) and
12 jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction is responsible for developing its
own subarea plan to implement the regional MSCP within that
jurisdiction.
Known occurrences of Monardella stoneana located within the City of
San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP include the occurrence just east
of Buschalaugh Cove on the lower Otay Reservoir (EO 5) and a portion of
the occurrence in an unnamed tributary of Cottonwood Creek east of
Marron Valley (EO 6). The City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan requires
preservation of 100 percent of the occurrences on city-owned lands in
the Otay area. City-owned lands represent a total of 7 percent of
habitat for the species. Additional impact avoidance and other measures
are required under the City's plan to protect narrow endemic species,
such as M. stoneana, and the subarea plan includes area-specific
management directives designed to maintain long-term survival in the
planning area (Service 1997, pp. 104-105). Under the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan, impacts to narrow endemic plants, including M. stoneana,
inside the MHPA (Multi-Habitat Protection Area) will be avoided.
Additionally, the City has completed a fire management plan for the
Marron Valley area. This plan outlines as major goals the reduction of
too-short fire return intervals. It also provides for protection of
native plant community structure and biodiversity, including protection
for M. stoneana and the canyon where it is found (EO 1) (Tierra Data
2006, pp. 4-1-4-2).
The County of San Diego Subarea Plan covers 252,132 ac (102,035 ha)
in
[[Page 33898]]
the southwestern portion of the County's unincorporated lands, and is
implemented in part by the Biological Mitigation Ordinance (BMO). As
discussed in the Wilderness Act and Federal Land Policy and Management
Act section above, protections provided by the County of San Diego
Subarea Plan under the MSCP also apply to the Otay Mountain Wilderness,
and thus are discussed here. The County of San Diego Subarea plan
outlines the specific criteria and requirements for projects within the
MSCP subarea plan's boundaries to alleviate threats from development
and increased fire frequency (see MSCP, County of San Diego Subarea
Plan (2007) and County of San Diego Biological Mitigation Ordinance
(Ord. Nos. 8845, 9246) 1998). The BMO requires that all impacts to
narrow endemic plant species, including Monardella stoneana, be avoided
to the maximum extent practicable (City of San Diego 2007, p. 11). All
projects within the County's MSCP subarea plan boundaries must comply
with both the MSCP requirements and the County's policies under CEQA.
The private land on Otay Mountain where Monardella stoneana is
known to occur is part of Otay Ranch; this land is zoned as ``Open
Space'' by the County of San Diego and identified as part of the County
of San Diego's preserve for the MSCP. Only 4 percent of M. stoneana
habitat occurs on private land. This land is also covered by the Otay
Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (Otay Ranch 2002), approved by
the County in 2002. This plan provides for the phased conservation and
development of lands in southern San Diego County. A large portion of
land is identified for conservation and will be dedicated as associated
development occurs. The Otay Ranch Phase 2 Management Plan provides
protection for 100 percent of M. stoneana occurring on the preserve
(Otay Ranch 2002, p. 144) and includes provisions to manage the 4
percent of M. stoneana habitat that is on private land in a way that
will benefit this species (Otay Ranch 2002, pp. 18-19, 52-53).
Additionally, the County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance
(RPO) (County of San Diego 2007) applies to unincorporated lands in the
County, both within and outside of the MSCP subarea plan boundaries.
The RPO identifies restrictions on development to reduce or eliminate
impacts to natural resources, including wetlands, wetland buffers,
floodplains, steep slope lands, and sensitive habitat lands. Sensitive
habitat lands are those that support unique vegetation communities or
those that either are necessary to support a viable population of
sensitive species (such as M. stoneana), are critical to the proper
functioning of a balanced natural ecosystem, or serve as a functioning
wildlife corridor (County of San Diego, 2007, p. 3). They can include
areas that contain maritime succulent scrub, southern coastal bluff
scrub, coastal and desert dunes, calcicolous scrub, and maritime
chaparral, among others. Impacts to RPO sensitive habitat lands are
only allowed when all feasible measures have been applied to reduce
impacts and when mitigation provides an equal or greater benefit to the
affected species (County of San Diego, 2007, p. 13).
Summary of Factor D
On City and County lands occupied by Monardella stoneana or
containing its habitat, we believe the County of San Diego Resource
Protection Ordinance, the Biological Mitigation Ordinance, and the
Subarea plans for the City and County of San Diego provide mechanisms
to conserve M. stoneana in association with new development or other
proposed projects, and they provide mechanisms for the creation of
biological reserves. The County of San Diego subarea plan provides
protective mechanisms for the small percentage of M. stoneana on
private land for new development or other proposed projects, and
includes provisions for monitoring and management through development
of location-specific management plans. Unlike for habitat containing M.
viminea, the City of San Diego has developed final monitoring and
management plans for M. stoneana. Conservation measures addressing
stressors from type conversion due to frequent fire are thus
identified, and are being carried out at the Marron Valley occurrence,
which is the only city-owned land where M. stoneana is extant. However,
as only a small percentage of M. stoneana occurs on city-owned lands,
these actions on their own, although providing a benefit to the one
occurrence on city-owned land, are not enough to protect the species as
a whole.
On land owned and managed by the CDFG and BLM, which contain
approximately 88 percent of all occurrences of Monardella stoneana,
fire management is provided by CAL FIRE, and further protection of
natural resources on state lands is provided by management conducted
consistent with the Wilderness Act.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude M. stoneana is not threatened by inadequate
existing regulatory mechanisms. Federal, State, and local regulatory
mechanisms help to reduce wildfire impacts, primarily to property and
human safety; they do not adequately protect M. stoneana from direct
mortality caused by megafires. However, the impact of megafire on
wildlands is not a threat that is susceptible to elimination by
regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we do not find existing regulations
inadequate to protect M. stoneana, now or in the foreseeable future.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Trampling
Trampling was identified as a threat to Monardella linoides ssp.
viminea in the original listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998).
Trampling by pedestrians may result in damage or death to M. stoneana
plants. The City of San Diego MSCP previously identified Off-Highway
Vehicle (OHV) activity and disturbance from illegal immigrant activity
as a major management issue (City of San Diego 1997, p. 52). All M.
stoneana clusters occur in close proximity to the Mexico border, where
historically many illegal immigrants cross on foot. Monitoring reports
previously noted immigrant trails through M. stoneana habitat at the
Otay Lakes location (City of San Diego 2006, p. 8). However, the recent
border fence construction and other enforcement activities in the Otay
Mountain Wilderness area have reduced illegal immigrant traffic (Ford
2010, p. 1), and thus potential impacts of trampling at the Otay Lakes,
Marron Valley, and Otay Mountain locations. So while there may be some
impacts due to trampling to individual plants, it is unlikely to occur
at levels that would affect the status of the species. Based on the
best scientific information, we believe that trampling (human
disturbance activities) does not pose a significant risk to the
persistence of M. stoneana now or in the foreseeable future.
Nonnative Plant Species
The listing rule identifies nonnative plants as a threat to
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). San
Diego County habitats have been altered by invasion of nonnative
species (Soule et al. 1992, p. 43). Nonnative grasses, which frequently
grow more quickly than native species, can smother seedling and mature
M. viminea and prevent natural growth (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 12).
The same effect is likely for M. stoneana. Monitors for the City of San
Diego MSCP recorded invasive plants at the Marron Valley location in
the 2008 and
[[Page 33899]]
2009 survey reports (City of San Diego 2008, p. 2; City of San Diego
2009, p. 1). At the Otay Lakes location, the invasive plant tamarisk
was documented in 2006 (City of San Diego 2006, p. 8), and nonnative
grasses were documented in 2008 and 2009 (City of San Diego 2008, p. 2;
City of San Diego 2009, p. 2).
However, despite the presence of nonnative plants in the range of
Monardella stoneana, monitoring reports have not recorded the same
level of invasion by nonnative grasses that has occurred in the
vicinity of M. viminea. As discussed under Factor A, the percent ground
cover of nonnative and native plant species has increased between 2008
and 2010 at both Otay Lakes and Marron Valley. Additionally, the number
of individual plants of M. stoneana at Marron Valley has not changed
since 2006 (City of San Diego 2006, p. 1; City of San Diego 2008, p. 1;
City of San Diego 2009, p. 1; City of San Diego 2010, p. 11). These
observations are consistent with the observation of Minnich and Bahre
(1995, p. 17) that generally, the ground cover of all herbaceous
plants, including that of nonnative grasses, was absent or consisted of
thinly scattered plants within the chaparral along the California-Baja
California boundary. Furthermore, these monitored occurrences have not
undergone the same increase in nonnative vegetation recorded at M.
viminea occurrences in Sycamore Canyon and on MCAS Miramar. Therefore,
based on the best available scientific information, we find that
nonnative species do not constitute a threat to the continued existence
of M. stoneana.
Small Population Size
The original listing rule identified the restricted range and small
population size of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea as a threat as it
increases the possibility of extinction due to chance events such as
floods, fires, or drought, outside the natural variability of the
ecosystem (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998; Lande 1993, p. 912). With the
split of M. linoides ssp. viminea into two entities, the magnitude of
this threat would likely increase; however, we note that several
additional M. stoneana occurrences have been discovered. Similarly,
Prince (2009, p. 2) suggests that multiple undiscovered occurrences of
M. stoneana may exist in the vicinity of Tecate Peak. This area has not
been extensively surveyed, as it is difficult to access. Additional
habitat may exist in Mexico; however, we are unaware of any surveys
confirming the presence or absence of M. stoneana in Mexico, apart from
plants seen directly across the border. Based on information in our
files, these are the only occurrences in Mexico of which we are aware.
However, suitable habitat and landscape conditions exist in Mexico,
close to the current range of the species in the United States.
Of the 20 known occurrences of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea at
the time of listing, only 2 were later considered to be M. stoneana.
Subsequent surveys have identified additional occurrences, and M.
stoneana is currently known from approximately eight occurrences in the
Otay Mountains area (CNDDB 2010b). The number of plants in Mexico is
unknown and has been minimally investigated. Plants across the border
in Mexico are visible from at least two occurrences south of Otay
Mountain, but these occurrences have not been formally surveyed.
Additionally, the most recent survey for this area was in 2005 (CNDDB
2010a), so the continued existence of these Mexico occurrences and the
number of clumps present cannot be confirmed.
Any decrease in occurrences may result in decreased reproductive
opportunities and genetic exchange between canyons through pollination.
However, effects from this threat may be less severe if more
occurrences exist in Mexico than are currently known. However, we do
not consider small population size alone sufficient to meet the
information threshold indicating that the species warrants listing. In
the absence of information identifying threats to the species and
linking those threats to the rarity of the species, the Service does
not consider rarity or small populations alone to be a threat. For
example, the habitat supporting M. viminea faces significant threats
from the impacts of fire, altered hydrologic regimes, and competition
with nonnative plants. As discussed above, M. stoneana does not face
such threats. A species that has always had small population sizes or
been rare, yet continues to survive, is likely well equipped to
continue to exist into the future. Many naturally rare species have
persisted for long periods within small geographic areas, and many
naturally rare species exhibit traits that allow them to persist
despite their small population sizes. Monardella stoneana appears to
have persisted for over two decades in the two occurrences known since
the 1970s and 1980s, respectively (CNDDB 2010b; EOs 1 and 4); this is
in contrast to M. viminea occurrences, many of which have undergone
population declines during the same time period. The other seven
occurrences were discovered in 2003 or later, so long-term data are not
available; one of those seven occurrences has since been extirpated (EO
5). Monardella stoneana has not experienced a significant population
decline since listing, nor have multiple occurrences been extirpated.
One of two occurrences monitored by the City of San Diego (EO 1) has
remained stable throughout the past decade of monitoring, though one
occurrence (EO 5) containing one clump was extirpated (although the EO
5 occurrence contained a maximum of only two clumps since monitoring
began in 2000). This is in contrast to M. viminea, which has
experienced a loss of several populations since listing. Consequently,
the fact that this species is rare and has small populations does not
indicate that it is in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable
future. Therefore, though small population size may pose a threat to M.
stoneana, it is not alone enough to cause the extinction of the species
within the foreseeable future.
Fire
As discussed under Factor E for Monardella viminea, fire can impact
individual plants. This is especially true of megafire events that
cannot be controlled or ameliorated through management efforts. A
narrow endemic such as M. stoneana could be especially sensitive to
megafire events. One large fire could impact all or a large proportion
of the entire area where the species is found, as occurred for M.
viminea in the 2003 Cedar fire. However, as discussed in Factor E for
M. viminea, the decline of the burned occurrences of M. viminea was not
as severe as initially expected. We expect that M. stoneana would
experience the same ability to sprout from the roots, as it is closely
related to M. viminea.
Furthermore, despite the increased frequency of fire, M. stoneana
has persisted through all large fires in the region. The GIS fire
boundaries show that each occurrence of M. stoneana has been burned at
least once in the past decade. In the past two decades, 8 of 9 EOs
burned two or more times, and 4 occurrences burned three or more times.
The only reports of damage are from EO 5, which lost its one remaining
plant, and EO 4, which was ``damaged'' in a recent (unspecified) fire,
but not extirpated (CNDDB 2010b). In the occasion that a fire impacts
all of the occurrences, we anticipate that the effects to M. stoneana
individuals would be comparable to M. viminea, where the best available
information show individuals are recovering from having 98 percent of
the occurrences on MCAS Miramar being burned in the 2003 Cedar Fire.
[[Page 33900]]
Given the increased frequency of megafires within Southern
California ecosystems, and the inability of regulatory mechanisms to
prevent or control megafire, we find that megafire does have the
potential to impact occurrences of Monardella stoneana. However, given
the species' persistence through past fires, and the ability of a
closely related species to recover from direct impact by fires, we do
not expect that megafire is a significant threat to individual M.
stoneana plants now, nor is likely to become a threat in the
foreseeable future.
Climate Change
As noted above in our status determination for Monardella viminea,
a broad consensus exists among scientists that the earth is in a
warming trend caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide (IPCC 2007). Researchers have documented climate-related
changes in California (Croke et al. 1998, pp. 2128, 2130; Breshears et
al. 2005, p. 15144). Predictions for California indicate prolonged
drought and other climate-related changes will continue in the future
(e.g., Field et al. 1999, pp. 8-10; Lenihen et al. 2003, p. 1667;
Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Breshears et al. 2005, p. 15144; Seager
et al. 2007, p. 1181; IPCC 2007, p. 9). Models are not yet powerful
enough to predict what will happen in localized regions such as
southern California and northern Baja California, but many scientists
believe warmer, wetter winters and warmer, drier summers will occur
within the next century (Field et al. 1999, pp. 2-3, 20). The impacts
on species like M. stoneana, which depend on specific hydrological
regimes, may be more severe (Graham 1997, p. 2).
Since approximately the time of listing in 1998, an extended
drought in the region (San Diego County Water Authority 2010, p. 2)
created unusually dry habitat conditions. From 2000 to 2009, at one of
the closer precipitation gauges to the Monardella stoneana occurrences
(Lake Cuyamaca, San Diego County, California), 8 of 10 years had
precipitation significantly below normal (San Diego County Water
Authority 2010, p. 2). This extended drought has cumulatively affected
moisture regimes, riparian habitat, and vegetative conditions in and
around suitable habitat for M. stoneana, increasing the stress on
individual plants. As stated above, future climate changes may lead to
similar, if not more severe, conditions.
The predicted drought could impact the dynamics of the streambeds
where Monardella stoneana grows. Soil moisture and transportation of
sediments by downstream flow have been identified as key habitat
features required by M. stoneana. The species is characterized as being
associated with areas of standing water after rainfall (Elvin and
Sanders 2003, p. 426). Monitors for the City of San Diego have observed
decreased plant health and increased dormancy of Monardella species in
years with low rainfall (City of San Diego 2003, p. 3; City of San
Diego 2004, p. 3). Specific analyses of population trends as correlated
to rainfall are difficult due to inconsistent plant count methods (City
of San Diego 2004, p. 67).
While drier conditions associated with climate change may result in
increased fire frequency within some plant communities as discussed
under Factor A, the effect of more arid conditions is not known on
chaparral, the plant community associated with Monardella stoneana.
According to Minnich and Bahre (1997, p. 20), fires in the chaparral of
northern Baja California, Mexico, are smaller and more frequent than
those observed across the border in southern California. Nonetheless,
despite these differences in the present fire regimes within chaparral
in California and Mexico, Minnich and Bahre (1997, p. 20) concluded
that their ``repeat photographs of the monument markers, field samples,
repeat aerial photography, and fire history maps show that chaparral
succession is similar across the international boundary between Jacumba
[in California] and Tecate [in Mexico] and that chaparral succession
along the border is similar to that found elsewhere in California.''
Except for a statistically significant correlation that early autumn
rains cut short the fire season at its peak, Keeley and Fotheringham
(2003, p. 235) did not find patterns between rainfall and burning for
chaparral and coastal sage shrublands. As a result, increased aridity
may have little effect on chaparral.
Preliminary information for Monardella stoneana does show that the
effects of climate change on chaparral may be less than the effects on
coastal sage scrub (see Climate Change section for M. viminea above).
While we recognize that climate change and increased drought associated
with climate change are important issues with potential effects to
listed species and their habitats, the best available scientific
evidence does not give specific evidence for us to formulate accurate
predictions regarding climate change's effects to particular species,
including M. stoneana, at this time. Therefore, we do not consider
global climate change a current threat to M. stoneana, either now or in
the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
We found no evidence that other natural or manmade factors pose a
significant threat to M. stoneana. Based on a review of the best
available scientific and commercial data, trampling and nonnative
invasive plant species are not a significant threat. We conclude based
on the best available scientific information that M. stoneana could be
affected temporarily by fire impacts associated with the death of
individual plants; however, we do not consider this a threat to the
continued existence of the species. Small population size could
exacerbate other threats, but as there are none, this is not a factor;
small population size in itself does not cause M. stoneana to be
warranted for listing. In addition, BLM conducts ongoing management
that provides a benefit to M. stoneana. Finally, with regard to the
direct and indirect effects of climate change on individual M. stoneana
plants, we have no information at this point to demonstrate that
predicted climate changes pose a significant threat to the species now
or in the foreseeable future.
Proposed Determination--Monardella stoneana
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Monardella stoneana. Unlike M. viminea, M. stoneana has not
undergone a dramatic decline in population size. While megafire and
small population size may impact M. stoneana, these factors do not pose
a threat to the continued existence of the species. Apart from those
factors, we found no significant threats to M. stoneana related to
Factors A, B, C, D, or E, as described above. We find that the best
available information for Factor A (The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range),
including information on the potential effects of urban development,
sand and gravel mining, type conversion due to frequent fire, and
altered hydrology, indicates that listing M. stoneana as endangered or
threatened under the Act is not warranted based on the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range. To the extent that M. stoneana may be experiencing localized
impacts, analysis of recent and current surveys of M. stoneana habitat
in the Otay Mountain locations indicate that its habitat is
[[Page 33901]]
under protective status and remains in relatively good condition, with
active management and monitoring activities. We found no available
information concerning Factors B (Overutilization) and C (Disease or
Predation) to indicate that listing M. stoneana as endangered or
threatened under the Act is warranted. We find that the best available
information concerning Factor D (Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms) indicates that listing the M. stoneana as endangered or
threatened under the Act is not warranted based on inadequacy of
existing regulations. We find that the best available information
concerning Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence) indicates that trampling and nonnative plants are
not currently threats to the continued existence of M. stoneana, nor
are they expected to be in the foreseeable future. We do not consider
M. stoneana's small population size in and of itself a threat such that
the species warrants listing, nor is it expected to be in the
foreseeable future. A species like M. stoneana that has always had
small population sizes or been rare, yet continues to survive, is
likely well equipped to continue to exist into the future.
Additionally, unlike M. viminea, M. stoneana has not undergone a
dramatic decline in population size. We have no information to
demonstrate that predicted climate changes will result in a significant
threat to the species now or in the foreseeable future. Even though M.
stoneana could be affected by megafire, we do not believe that megafire
poses a significant threat to the existence of the species now or in
the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by Monardella stoneana. Our review of the
information pertaining to the five threat factors does not support a
conclusion that threats of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude exist--either singly or in combination--to the extent that
the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, based on the best available scientific information,
we find M. stoneana does not warrant listing at this time. However, if
we receive new information that alters our analysis, we will revisit
and re-evaluate the status of M. stoneana. We are specifically seeking
public comment on this determination. Please refer to the ADDRESSES
section of this rule for information on where to submit your comments
and materials concerning this proposed rule.
Critical Habitat--Monardella viminea
Due to the taxonomic split of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea into
two distinct taxa (Monardella viminea (willowy monardella) and
Monardella stoneana (Jennifer's monardella); see Taxonomic and
Nomenclatural Changes Affecting Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
section above), and our conclusions that M. viminea is endangered and
M. stoneana is not warranted for listing, we are proposing revising
critical habitat for M. viminea. If we subsequently determine based on
the best available information that M. stoneana should be listed, we
will propose critical habitat, if prudent, for M. stoneana.
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical 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:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) That may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies insure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and
the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed
must contain physical and biological features which are essential to
the conservation of the species and which may require special
management considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial
data available, those physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat), focusing on the principal biological or
physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within an
area that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide,
soil type). Primary constituent elements are the elements of physical
and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation
of the species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate
that the conservation needs of the species require such additional
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An
area currently occupied by
[[Page 33902]]
the species, but that was not occupied at the time of listing may,
however, be essential to the conservation of the species and may be
included in the critical habitat designation.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure our decisions are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with
the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use
primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, the species' most recent 5-year
Review, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal
knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The information
currently available on the effects of global climate change and
increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently precise estimates of
the location and magnitude of the effects to enable us to accurately
predict its impacts on the narrow habitat range of Monardella viminea,
which is limited to the western portion of central San Diego County. We
are also not currently aware of any climate change information specific
to the habitat of M. viminea that would indicate what areas may become
important to the species in the future. Therefore, we are unable to
determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate to include
in the critical habitat for this species to address the effects of
climate change.
We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for
recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. 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 (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Monardella viminea
Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to designate as
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species which may require special
management considerations or protection. These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical and biological features required
for Monardella viminea from studies of this species' habitat, ecology,
and life history as described below. We also reviewed monitoring
reports from private firms, the City of San Diego, Friends of Los
Pe[ntilde]asquitos Canyon, the Service, and MCAS Miramar; technical
reports; the CNDDB (CNDDB 2010a, EOs 1-31.); Geographic Information
System (GIS) data (such as species occurrence data, soil data, land
use, topography, aerial imagery, and ownership maps); correspondence to
the Service from recognized experts; and other information as
available. Additional information can be found in the final listing
rule published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR
54938).
The primary constituent elements required for Monardella viminea
are derived from the physical and biological needs of this species as
described in the Background section for M. viminea in the beginning of
this proposal, the previous critical habitat rule (71 FR 65662;
November 8, 2006), the final listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13,
1998), and below. The areas in this proposed critical habitat contain
or support the soil types, potential insect pollinators, and vegetation
associated with M. viminea occupancy, and include areas adjacent to
plants (or plant clumps) necessary to maintain associated physical
processes, such as suitable hydrological regime, and biotic
associations, such as pollination. These areas provide suitable space,
water, minerals, and other physiological needs for reproduction and
growth of M. viminea. We have determined that M. viminea requires the
physical and biological features described below:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Habitats that provide space for growth and persistence of
Monardella viminea include: (1) Washes in coastal sage scrub or
riparian scrub vegetation; (2) terraced secondary benches, channel
banks, and stabilized sand bars; (3) soils with a high content of
coarse-grained sand and low content of silt and clay; and (4) open
ground cover, less than half of which is herbaceous vegetation cover
(Scheid 1985, pp. 30-35; Service 1998, p. 54938; Elvin and Sanders
2003,
[[Page 33903]]
pp. 426, 430; Kelly and Burrascano 2006, p. 51).
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Monardella viminea is most often found on the first above-water
sandbar in intermittent streambeds, where water runs for 24 to 48 hours
after heavy rain events (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 430; Kelly and
Burrascano 2006, p. 51). It can also be found within the streambed if
flow is infrequent enough and the soil is stable (Scheid 1985, pp. 3,
38-39). The most robust M. viminea individuals tend to occur in wide,
open canyons with broad channels and secondary benches, as opposed to
narrow, graded canyons (Kassebaum 2010, pers. comm.).
Monardella viminea plants are found on soil where subsurface layers
stay relatively moist throughout the year and where water accumulates
after rainstorms, such as north-facing slopes or canyon bottoms (Elvin
and Sanders 2003, pp. 426, 430). Plants with inadequate soil moisture
dry out during summer months and do not survive (Kelly and Burrascano
2006, p. 5). The species does not occur on soils that are permanently
wet (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 425). Monardella viminea occurrences
have been lost from areas where wetter soils result in an increase in
density of surrounding vegetation (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, p. 4).
Monardella viminea most generally occurs on soil types with high
sand content, often characterized by sediment and cobble deposited by
flood events (Scheid 1985, p. 35; Rebman and Dossey 2006a, pp. 5-6).
Natural Resources Conservation Service soil series where M. viminea is
known to occur includes (but may not be limited to): Stony Land,
Redding Gravelly Loam, Visalia Sandy Loam, and Riverwash (Rebman and
Dossey 2006a, p. 6).
Cover or Shelter
Monardella viminea requires open to semi-open canopies of coastal
sage and riparian scrub with limited herbaceous understory. Monardella
viminea plants usually occur in areas with an average of 75 percent
ground cover, of which approximately 65 percent is woody cover, and
less than 10 percent is herbaceous cover (Scheid 1985, pp. 32, 37-38).
Herbaceous cover, such as annual grasses, can grow in greater density
than native riparian and chaparral species, and through resource
competition and shading, herbaceous cover would likely prevent natural
growth and reproduction of M. viminea (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 12);
therefore, suitable habitat for the species is not dominated by
herbaceous cover.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Monardella viminea is visited by numerous bees and butterflies, and
is likely pollinated by a diverse array of insects, each of which have
their own habitat requirements (see Life History section for M. viminea
above); however, we are currently unaware of which insect species
pollinate M. viminea. Pollinators facilitate mixing of genes within and
among plant populations, without which inbreeding and reduced fitness
may occur (Widen and Widen 1990, p. 191). Native sand wasps within the
range of M. viminea, such as those from the Bembicine family, require
sandy areas, such as dunes or sandy washes, to nest, while solitary
bees from the Andrenidae family nest in upland areas (Kelly and
Burrascano 2001, p. 8). Native bees typically are more efficient
pollinators than introduced European honeybees (Javorek et al. 2002, p.
345). Therefore, populations serviced by a higher proportion of native
pollinator species are likely to maintain higher reproductive output
and persist for more generations than populations served by fewer
native pollinators or with pollination limitations of any kind (Javorek
et al. 2002, p. 350). Pollinators also require space for individual and
population growth; therefore, adequate habitat should be preserved for
pollinators in addition to the habitat necessary for M. viminea plants.
In this proposed critical habitat, we acknowledge the importance of
pollinators to M. viminea. However, we do not include pollinators and
their habitats as a primary constituent element (PCE), because: (1)
Meaningful data on specific pollinators and their habitat needs are
lacking; and (2) we were not able to quantify the amount of habitat
needed for pollinators, given the lack of information on the specific
pollinators of M. viminea.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
The long-term conservation of Monardella viminea is dependent on
several factors including, but not limited to, maintenance of areas
necessary to sustain natural ecosystem components, functions, and
processes (such as full sun exposure and natural hydrologic regimes);
and sufficient adjacent suitable habitat for vegetative reproduction,
population expansion, and pollination.
Open or semi-open rocky, sandy alluvium on terraced floodplains,
benches, stabilized sandbars, channel banks, and sandy washes along
ephemeral streams, washes, and floodplains are needed for individual
and population growth of Monardella viminea (Scheid 1985, pp. 30-31,
34-35). Within those areas, M. viminea requires adequate sunlight to
grow. Woody overgrowth is common and can help to maintain adequate soil
moisture, but areas crowded with herbaceous understory may not provide
adequate light for M. viminea.
The 2008 5-year review (Service 2008, p. 7) concluded that
Monardella viminea requires a natural hydrological regime to maintain
or create suitable habitat conditions. This hydrological regime
maintains the floodplains, benches, and sandbars where M. viminea
grows. Characteristics of riparian channels and seasonal stream flow
determine timing, pattern, and depth of deposition of alluvial
materials and formation of sandbars and channel banks, which in turn
determine location of plants within the streambed, and suitable habitat
to support individuals and clumps of M. viminea (Scheid 1985, pp. 30-31
and 36-37). Decreases in flows, which would otherwise scour annual
grasses and seeds from the area, result in increased cover of nonnative
grasses, and decreased light and moisture availability for M. viminea.
Rapidly growing nonnative grasses can smother seedling and mature M.
viminea and prevent natural growth (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 12).
Additionally, increased flows can result in erosion that may alter
floodplains and erode banks, channel bars, and sandy washes where M.
viminea occurs (Kelly and Burrascano 2006, pp. 65-69).
Primary Constituent Elements
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of Monardella viminea in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We
consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical
and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
element specific to Monardella viminea is riparian channels with
ephemeral drainages and adjacent floodplains:
[[Page 33904]]
(1) With a natural hydrological regime, in which:
(a) Water flows only after peak seasonal rainstorms;
(b) High runoff events periodically scour riparian vegetation and
redistribute alluvial material to create new stream channels, benches,
and sandbars; and
(c) Water flows for usually less than 48 hours after a rain event,
without long-term standing water;
(2) Surrounding vegetation that provides semi-open, foliar cover
with:
(a) Little or no herbaceous understory;
(b) Little to no canopy cover;
(c) Open ground cover, less than half of which is herbaceous
vegetation cover;
(d) Some shrub cover; and
(e) An association of other plants, including Eriogonum
fasciculatum (California buckwheat) and Baccharis sarothroides (broom
baccharis);
(3) That contain ephemeral drainages that:
(a) Are made up of coarse, rocky, or sandy alluvium; and
(b) Contain terraced floodplains, terraced secondary benches,
stabilized sandbars, channel banks, or sandy washes; and
(4) That have soil with high sand content, typically characterized
by sediment and cobble deposits, and further characterized by a high
content of coarse, sandy grains and low content of silt and clay.
The need for space for individual and population growth and normal
behavior is provided by all sections of the PCE. The need for food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other physiological requirements is
provided by all sections of the PCE. Cover and shelter requirements are
provided by section (2) of the PCE. Areas for reproduction are provided
by all sections of the PCE. Finally, habitats representative of the
historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species are
provided by all sections of the PCE.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the physical
and biological features within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing that are essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection.
The area proposed for designation as critical habitat will require
some level of management or protection to address the current and
future threats to the physical and biological features. In all units,
special management considerations or protection may be required to
provide for the sustained function of the ephemeral washes on which
Monardella viminea depends.
The primary constituent element for M. viminea may require special
management considerations or protection to reduce the following
threats, among others: cover by nonnative plant species that crowds,
shades, or competes for resources; habitat alteration due to altered
hydrology from urbanization and associated infrastructure; and any
actions that alter the natural channel structure or course,
particularly increased water flow that could erode soils inhabited by
M. viminea or cover them with sediment deposits (all sections of PCE).
Conservation actions that could be implemented to address these threats
include (but are not limited to): Removal of nonnative vegetation by
weeding; planting of native species along stream courses in canyons to
help control erosion; use of silt fences to control erosion;
restriction of development that alters natural hydrological
characteristics of stream courses in canyons; and implementation of
prescribed burns (all sections of PCE). Additionally, specialized dams
and smaller barriers could be installed in canyons to help address
floodwater runoff that results from upstream development (which can
cause erosion and loss of clumps of M. viminea), though these dams must
be of adequate size and strength to withstand increased storm flow
caused by urbanization (PCE section 3).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements
of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing
regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating
additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well as those
occupied at the time of listing--is necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are not currently proposing to
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing because currently occupied areas (which
are within the area occupied by the species at the time of listing) are
sufficient for the conservation of the species.
This proposed rule updates the information used in our 2006 final
designation of critical habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
(71 FR 65662; November 8, 2006) with the best available data, including
new information not available when the 2006 rule was completed.
This section provides details of the process we used to delineate
the proposed critical habitat. This proposed critical habitat
designation is based on the best scientific data available, including
our analysis of the distribution and ecology of Monardella viminea as
identified in the 1998 final listing rule, the 2008 5-year review, new
information on the species' distribution and ecology made available
since listing, reclassification of M. viminea as a species, and State
and local measures in place for the conservation of M. viminea.
Specific differences from the 2006 designation of critical habitat are
described in the Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical
Habitat section below.
The areas in this proposed designation of critical habitat for
Monardella viminea were occupied by the species at the time of listing
and remain occupied today, and they possess those specific physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species that
may require special management considerations or protection. For this
proposed rule, we completed the following steps to delineate critical
habitat: (1) Compiled all available data from observations of M.
viminea into a GIS database; (2) identified occurrences that were
extant at the time of listing and those occurrences that are currently
extant or contain transplanted M. viminea; (3) identified areas
containing all the components that make up the PCE that may require
special management considerations or protection; (4) circumscribed
boundaries of potential critical habitat units based on the above
information; and (5) removed all areas that did not have the PCE and
therefore are not considered essential to the conservation of M.
viminea, or that are exempt from critical habitat under 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act. These steps are described in detail below.
(1) We compiled observational data from the following sources to
include in our GIS database for Monardella viminea: (a) CNDDB data and
supporting observation documentation information on M. viminea; (b)
monitoring reports from MCAS Miramar; and (c) monitoring reports from
private organizations and local government organizations, such as the
Carroll Canyon Business Park and the City of San Diego Subarea Plan
under the MSCP. No monitoring reports from the County of San Diego were
available.
[[Page 33905]]
(2) We considered extant all occurrences where presence of living
plants has been confirmed within the past 10 years. Using this
information, we determined that seven occurrences are currently extant.
Based on data from the CNDDB, we confirmed that all of these seven
occurrences were known and extant at the time of listing. We also
documented the presence of transplanted individual plants in Carroll,
San Clemente, and Lopez Canyons and included them in our analysis.
(3) To identify areas containing all the components that make up
the PCE for Monardella viminea that may require special management
considerations or protection, we conducted the following steps:
(a) We determined occurrence locations likely to belong to the same
population. Regardless of observation date, all occurrence locations
downstream from an extant occurrence and which would be connected to
the upstream occurrence during runoff events (that could transport
seeds downstream) were considered part of the same extant occurrence;
this was completed by examining survey reports from MCAS Miramar, the
City of San Diego, and the Friends of Los Pe[ntilde]asquitos Canyon.
(b) In order to create a scientifically based approach to drawing
critical habitat units, we first examined the utility of GIS vegetation
data polygons containing Monardella viminea occurrences (SANDAG 1995)
because the species is frequently associated with coastal sage scrub
and riparian scrub habitats (Scheid 1985, p. 3; Elvin and Sanders 2003,
p. 430; Kelly and Burrascano 2006, p. 51). In an attempt to better
distinguish the width of the specific areas within drainages that
contain the PCE, we searched for a correlation between habitat type and
clumps of M. viminea. We found M. viminea occurred in areas mapped as
11 different vegetation types, with the greatest number (45 percent)
falling within ``Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub.'' We noted that mapped
polygons of this vegetation type and some other vegetation types were
relatively large and did not correspond well with the drainage areas
where M. viminea and the PCE was likely to occur, indicating that they
were poor predictors for areas that contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of M. viminea.
(c) We examined polygons that were labeled as ``riparian''
vegetation for possible useful information to assist in delineation of
potential critical habitat areas because Monardella viminea is
generally described as a riparian-associated species. We found that
although southern sycamore-alder riparian woodland is rare in canyons
where M. viminea exists, where it is present, it closely corresponds to
areas that contain M. viminea and the physical and biological features
essential to its conservation. Because of this close correlation, we
used the southern sycamore-alder riparian woodland habitat type to
identify the widest distance of a riparian vegetation type polygon from
an occupied streambed line; we found this distance to be 490 ft (150
m).
(d) We then tested the 490 ft (150 m) value as an estimate of the
distance from the streambed most likely to capture the PCE throughout
the species' range. We used the widest distance from the streambed to
help identify areas that meet the definition of critical habitat rather
than the median (or another value). We wanted to ensure that we
captured all potential areas that have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of M. viminea versus those areas
that only contain occurrences of the species. We found that this 490 ft
(150 m) distance, when applied to all streambeds where M. viminea
occurred, captured all clumps of M. viminea except two in the southern
end of West Sycamore Canyon. The two southern clumps occur in an area
that appears to be a remnant habitat wash area at the end of West
Sycamore Canyon, which likely received additional stream flow during
storm events greater than 48 hours after a rain event (or more
frequently than just after a peak seasonal rainstorm), and thus does
not likely support occupancy long term nor significantly contribute to
population persistence.
The conservation of Monardella viminea depends on preservation of
habitat containing the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of the species. Like most plants, M. viminea is
occasionally found in areas considered atypical for the species. For
example, a plant was once found growing in mesa-top habitat along a
tributary of Rose Canyon (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 24, no EO
number). We consider that the habitat areas outlined using the method
described above will capture only the habitat that contains the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of M.
viminea. We determined the distance of 492 ft (150 m) was appropriate
to capture areas surrounding occupied streambeds that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and that meet the definition of critical habitat, and we
applied it across the species' range.
(4) We removed all areas not containing the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of Monardella viminea.
Monardella viminea requires all four sections of the PCE for growth and
reproduction; thus, only areas that contained all four sections of the
PCE were considered as critical habitat. We removed areas in Rose
Canyon (no EO number), Elanus Canyon (EO 24), and Lopez Canyon (EO 1),
and all four transplanted occurrences. All of these areas are
characterized by dense urban development on at least one border. As
discussed under Factor A for M. viminea, urbanization results in
increased frequency and intensity of storm flow events, to the point
that they wash away sandbars rather than scouring them of vegetation.
Further discussion of why we did not include these occurrences as
critical habitat is included in the Summary of Changes from Previously
Designated Critical Habitat section below. We also removed areas within
the boundaries of MCAS Miramar for this proposed rule because these
areas are exempt under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act from critical
habitat designation (see Exemptions section below).
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical and biological features for Monardella viminea. The scale of
the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed critical habitat
have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed
for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat
is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would
not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and
the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action
would affect the physical and biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we
have determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain
sufficient elements of physical and biological features to support
life-history processes essential for the conservation of the species.
[[Page 33906]]
Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat
The areas identified in this proposed rule constitute a revision of
the areas we described and mapped as meeting the definition of critical
habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea in the final critical
habitat designation published in the Federal Register on November 8,
2006 (71 FR 65662) (see Table 2). This proposed rule identifies 348 ac
(141 ha) that meet the definition of critical habitat for Monardella
viminea. This proposed rule includes all 73 ac (30 ha) designated as
critical habitat in the final rule in 2006, and portions of areas
excluded from the 2006 designation. This proposed rule also differs in
area from the 2006 designation due to the removal of areas now
identified as habitat for M. stoneana (255 ac (103 ha); 71 FR 65662,
November 8, 2006), as described above in the Background section of this
proposed rule. The rest of the change in area is primarily due to our
improved GIS mapping techniques, improved description of the areas
containing the PCE for M. viminea, and our removal of lands in Lopez
Canyon, Elanus Canyon, and Rose Canyon that we no longer consider to
meet the definition of critical habitat (see Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat section above and Proposed Critical Habitat
Designation--Monardella viminea section below).
The differences between this proposed rule and the 2006 critical
habitat designation include the following:
(1) Recognition of Monardella linoides subsp. viminea as two
distinct taxa at the species rank as Monardella viminea (willowy
monardella) and M. stoneana (Jennifer's monardella). Given our
determination that M. viminea warrants listing as endangered, we are
proposing critical habitat for M. viminea.
(2) We revised the Background section to include our updated
knowledge of life history, taxonomy, and nomenclature, including
information on potential pollinators of Monardella viminea.
(3) We revised the description of the PCEs for Monardella viminea
to include a single PCE with more detailed information on the physical
and biological features essential to Monardella viminea including soil
characteristics, disturbance regimes, stream flow, and ground cover
that support this species.
(4) We revised the criteria used to identify critical habitat based
on our reevaluation of all available Monardella viminea information,
including that available since the publication of the 2006 rule, to
ensure this proposed rule reflects the best available scientific data.
Our conclusion based on this reevaluation differs from the 2006
critical habitat designation in how we identified and delineated
critical habitat.
(5) Our reevaluation does not identify some areas as critical
habitat that were designated as critical habitat in the 2006 final
critical habitat rule. In the 2006 final critical habitat rule, all
habitat containing occurrences of Monardella viminea was classified as
critical habitat. However, we have revised the PCE for M. viminea based
on our improved understanding of the habitat features essential for the
species' conservation and, in this proposed rule, we have proposed
critical habitat only in locations that contain the revised PCE. While
Elanus, Lopez, and Rose Canyons contain species occurrences, they do
not contain the PCE. We now recognize that urbanization around all
three canyons has substantially altered drainage patterns, such that
peak flood events have increased in intensity and frequency to the
point where they occur more than just after peak rainfall events, and
such that they regularly wash away entire channels and benches where M.
viminea grows (PCE section (3)(b)). Thus the three areas do not contain
all the components that make up the PCE identified for M. viminea.
We note that the habitat available in these canyons only supports a
limited number of plants: Elanus Canyon has approximately 16 plants,
Lopez Canyon has 8 plants, and Rose Canyon has the smallest occurrence
of Monardella viminea with only 3 plants. Rose Canyon contains limited
habitat for M. viminea, with little space downstream for expansion of
the occurrence (Kassebaum 2010, pers. comm.), and the area around Rose
Canyon is developed, which has disrupted the natural hydrological
regime on which long-term persistence of M. viminea depends (Rebman and
Dossey 2006, p. 37), resulting in high runoff events that occur more
frequently than just at peak seasonal rainfalls. The area around Lopez
Canyon is also heavily urbanized, and floods from storm runoff have
already eroded channels and benches where M. viminea grows. A portion
of land surrounding the southern half of Elanus Canyon has been
developed. This development, located along the eastern side of the
canyon, has also resulted in altered hydrology. Thus, we do not
consider Elanus, Lopez, or Rose Canyons to meet the definition of
critical habitat.
We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For this
reason, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for
recovery of the species. We solicit information during the public
comment period on any areas that we have not included in this proposed
rule (including Elanus, Lopez, and Rose Canyons), including any
evidence that they meet the definition of critical habitat (see Public
Comments section).
(6) We changed unit numbers and names in this proposed rule to
reflect estimated population distributions instead of political
boundaries (such as former Unit 2 that consisted of all partial
polygons within MCAS Miramar, regardless of population distribution).
(7) Our revised criteria resulted in both inclusion of areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat and removal of areas from the
2005 proposed rule or the 2006 final rule that do not meet the
definition of critical habitat. Changes from areas identified in the
2005 proposed rule as meeting the definition of critical habitat
include the exclusion of areas in Elanus, Lopez, and Rose Canyons that
we no longer consider to meet the definition of critical habitat (see
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat section above).
(8) We did not include any areas associated with former Units 7, 8,
and 9, described in the 2006 final critical habitat designation for
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, because these areas/occurrences are
now recognized as supporting M. stoneana (see Taxonomic and
Nomenclatural Changes Affecting Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
section above).
The differences between the 2006 final critical habitat designation
and the proposed revised critical habitat designation in this rule are
summarized below in Table 2. Please note that Table 2's units for the
2006 final rule do not correspond to the unit numbers presented in that
rule; they correspond to the proposed units in this document.
[[Page 33907]]
Table 2--Comparison of the 2006 Final Critical Habitat Designation for Monardella Linoides ssp. Viminea and the
proposed critical habitat for M. Viminea.
[Note: This table does not include the 255 ac (103 ha) of habitat now identified as occupied by M. stoneana.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 final critical habitat 2011 proposed critical habitat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Area containing Area containing
Unit name essential features Unit name essential features
ac (ha) ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sycamore Canyon................. Unit 1 Partial 373 (151)......... Unit 1 Partial 350 (142)
4(a)(3)(B)(i) 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
exemption. exemption.
West Sycamore Canyon............ .................. 529 (214)......... Unit 2 Partial 577 (233)
4(a)(3)(B)(i)
exemption.
Spring Canyon................... .................. 245 (99).......... Unit 3 Partial 273 (111)
4(a)(3)(B)(i)
exemption.
East San Clemente Canyon........ .................. 638 (258)......... Unit 4 Partial 467 (189)
4(a)(3)(B)(i)
exemption.
West San Clemente Canyon........ .................. 114 (46).......... Unit 5 Partial 227 (92)
4(a)(3)(B)(i)
exemption.
Lopez Canyon.................... .................. 77 (31)........... .................. 0 (0)
Elanus Canyon................... .................. 82 (33)........... .................. 0 (0)
Rose Canyon..................... .................. 185 (75).......... .................. 0 (0)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ESSENTIAL HABITAT**... .................. 2,242 (907)....... .................. 1,894 (767)
TOTAL EXEMPT................ .................. 1,863 (754)....... .................. 1,546 (626)
TOTAL EXCLUDED OR BEING .................. 306 (124) .................. 208 (84)
CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION. (excluded in (considered for
2006). exclusion)
TOTAL CRITICAL HABITAT*..... .................. 73 (30) Designated .................. 348 (141) Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.
** See Table 4 for acreages considered for exclusion in each unit.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation--Monardella viminea
We are proposing five units as critical habitat for Monardella
viminea. The proposed critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for M. viminea. This proposed rule, if
finalized, will replace the current critical habitat designation for M.
linoides ssp. viminea at 50 CFR 17.96(a). The five units we propose as
critical habitat are: (1) Sycamore Canyon, (2) West Sycamore Canyon,
(3) Spring Canyon, (4) East San Clemente Canyon, and (5) West San
Clemente Canyon. The approximate area of each proposed critical habitat
unit is shown in Table 3. All proposed units were occupied by M.
viminea at the time the species was listed (as M. linoides ssp.
viminea), are currently occupied by M. viminea, and contain the primary
constituent element essential for the conservation of the species. A
summary of the five units showing areas, ownership, and exemptions is
given below in Table 3.
Table 3--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Monardella Viminea, Showing Estimated Area in Acres (Hectares),
Land Ownership, and Areas Exempt Under Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal ac State and Private ac
Location of proposed non-exempt acres* (ha) local ac (ha) (ha) Total ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. Sycamore Canyon......................... 0 (0) 36 (15) 158 (64) 194 (79)
Unit 2. West Sycamore Canyon.................... 0 (0) 27 (11) 0 (0) 27 (11)
Unit 3. Spring Canyon........................... 0 (0) 5 (2) 92 (37) 97 (39)
Unit 4. East San Clemente Canyon................ 0 (0) 13(5) 0 (0) 13 (5)
Unit 5. West San Clemente Canyon................ 0 (0) 16 (7) <1 (<1) 16 (7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location of Exempt areas at MCAS Miramar--EXEMPT under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sycamore Canyon................................. 156 (63) 0 (0) 0 (0) 156 (63)
West Sycamore Canyon............................ 550 (222) 0 (0) 0 (0) 550 (222)
Spring Canyon................................... 176 (71) 0 (0) 0 (0) 176 (71)
East San Clemente Canyon........................ 454 (184) 0 (0) 0 (0) 454 (184)
West San Clemente Canyon........................ 210 (85) 0 (0) 0 (0) 210 (85)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Essential Habitat..................... 1,546 (625) 86 (35) 263 (106) 1,894 (767)
Total Area Proposed Revised Critical Habitat.... 0 (0) 86 (35) 263 (106) 348 (141)**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.
** See Table 4 for acreages proposed for exclusion in each unit.
[[Page 33908]]
We present brief descriptions of the five proposed critical habitat
units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for
Monardella viminea.
Unit 1: Sycamore Canyon
Unit 1 consists of 194 ac (79 ha) and is located in Sycamore Canyon
at the northeastern boundary of MCAS Miramar, north of Santee Lakes in
San Diego County, California. Three separate branches of the canyon
within the unit pass outside the boundaries of MCAS Miramar and consist
of 36 ac (15 ha) of land owned by San Diego County, 1 ac (less than 1
ha) of land owned by water districts, and 158 ac (64 ha) of private
land, 110 ac (45 ha) of which are within the boundaries of the City of
Santee, which has no approved MSCP; and 47 ac (19 ha) of which are
within the boundaries of the City of San Diego. This canyon is the only
place where Monardella viminea is found in oak woodland habitat, and is
one of the few areas in the range of M. viminea with mature riparian
habitat (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 23). Sycamore Canyon, in which
this unit is found, is essential to the recovery of the species because
it supports over 400 individuals (City of San Diego 2010, p. 257;
Tierra Data 2011, p. 12). The habitat in this unit provides redundancy
and resiliency for M. viminea, and since not all areas of this unit are
occupied by M. viminea (i.e., the unit is occupied, although there are
areas such as within the canyon where plants are not currently
growing), the unit provides space for the growth and expansion of the
species. This unit contains the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of M. viminea, including riparian
channels with a natural hydrological regime (PCE section (1)),
ephemeral drainages made up of rocky or sandy alluvium (PCE section
(3)), and surrounding vegetation that provides semi-open foliar cover
(PCE section (2)). The PCE in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonnative plant species and erosion of the canyon (City of San Diego
2005, p. 68; 2006, p. 10; 2009, p. 2). Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection--Monardella viminea section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of the threats to M. viminea
habitat and potential management considerations. We are considering
exclusion of portions of Unit 1 (83 ac (34 ha)) for M. viminea from
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act that are covered by
the City of San Diego and County of San Diego Subarea Plans under the
MSCP; see Considered Exclusions--Monardella viminea section of this
proposed rule for more information.
Unit 2: West Sycamore Canyon
Unit 2 consists of 27 ac (11 ha), comprised of 21 ac (9 ha) of land
owned by the City of San Diego and 6 ac (2 ha) of land owned by water
districts, and is located in West Sycamore Canyon adjacent to the
eastern section of MCAS Miramar, in San Diego County, California. The
northernmost point of the unit is just outside the boundary of MCAS
Miramar. West Sycamore Canyon, in which Unit 2 is found, is essential
to the recovery of Monardella viminea as it contains the largest number
of M. viminea individuals of any canyon in the species' range (Tierra
Data 2011, p. 12). The habitat in this unit provides redundancy and
resiliency for M. viminea, and since not all areas of this unit are
occupied by M. viminea (i.e., the unit is occupied, although there are
areas such as within the canyon where plants are not currently
growing), the unit provides space for the growth and expansion of the
species. Unit 2, which contains proposed critical habitat for M.
viminea in that portion of West Sycamore Canyon located outside of MCAS
Miramar, contains the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of M. viminea, including riparian channels with a natural
hydrological regime (PCE section (1)), ephemeral drainages made up of
rocky or sandy alluvium (PCE section (3)), and surrounding vegetation
that provides semi-open foliar cover (PCE section (2)). The PCE in this
unit may require special management considerations or protection to
address threats associated with erosion from heavy rainfall events.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection--
Monardella viminea section of this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to M. viminea habitat and potential management
considerations. We are considering exclusion of a portion of Unit 2 (21
ac (9 ha)) for M. viminea from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act that is covered by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan under
the MSCP; see Considered Exclusions--Monardella viminea section of this
proposed rule for more information.
Unit 3: Spring Canyon
Unit 3 consists of 97 ac (39 ha) and is located in Spring Canyon
south of the border of MCAS Miramar and north of State Route 52 and
Kumeyaay Lake in San Diego County, California. This unit is composed of
5 ac (2 ha) of land owned by the City of San Diego and 92 ac (37 ha) of
private land within the boundaries of the City of San Diego. The
occurrences in this canyon exist in dense clumps along the canyon on
the inside edge of meandering portions of the streambed, and on low
benches adjacent to drainages, and comprise a large population of
Monardella viminea with over 500 plants in 2002 (Rebman and Dossey
2006a, pp. 21, 23). Spring Canyon, in which Unit 3 is found, is
essential to the recovery of M. viminea because, as one of the least
disturbed canyons on MCAS Miramar and due to its isolation from
developed areas (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 23), it supports the
natural hydrological regime necessary for growth and reproduction of
the species. Unit 3 contains proposed critical habitat for M. viminea
in that portion of Spring Canyon located outside of MCAS Miramar.
Spring Canyon, in which Unit 3 is found, is also essential to the
recovery of the species because it currently contains over 350
individuals (Tierra Data 2011, p. 12). The habitat in this unit
provides redundancy and resiliency for M. viminea, and since not all
areas of this unit are occupied by M. viminea (i.e., the unit is
occupied although there are areas such as within the canyon where
plants are not currently growing), the unit provides space for the
growth and expansion of the species. This unit contains the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of M. viminea,
including riparian channels with a natural hydrological regime (PCE
section (1)), ephemeral drainages made up of rocky or sandy alluvium
(PCE section (3)), and surrounding vegetation that provides semi-open
foliar cover (PCE section (2)). The PCE in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonnative species. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection--Monardella viminea section of this proposed rule for a
discussion of the threats to M. viminea habitat and potential
management considerations. We are considering exclusion of Unit 3 (97
ac (39 ha)) from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
because all of the land within the unit is covered by the City of San
Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP; see Considered Exclusions--
Monardella viminea section of this proposed rule for more information.
Unit 4: East San Clemente Canyon
Unit 4 consists of 13 ac (5 ha) of land located in the eastern
portion of San Clemente Canyon north of the northeastern border of MCAS
Miramar
[[Page 33909]]
in San Diego County, California. This unit is composed of 7 ac (3 ha)
of land owned by the City of San Diego, and 6 ac (3 ha) of land owned
by the California Department of Transportation. We are considering it a
separate unit from the other portion of San Clemente Canyon because the
Sim J. Harris aggregate mine acts as a barrier to the physical and
biotic continuity between the two portions of the canyon. Unit 4 is
drier than the western portion of the canyon (Unit 5) and consists of
mature chaparral habitat (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 22). This unit is
essential to the recovery of the species because San Clemente Canyon,
which includes Unit 4, contains over 500 individuals (Rebman and Dossey
2006a, p. 22). The habitat in this unit provides redundancy and
resiliency for M. viminea, and since not all areas of this unit are
occupied by M. viminea (i.e., the unit is occupied, although there are
areas such as within the canyon where plants are not currently
growing), the unit provides space for the growth and expansion of the
species. This unit contains the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of M. viminea, including riparian
channels with a natural hydrological regime (PCE section (1)),
ephemeral drainages made up of rocky or sandy alluvium (PCE section
(3)), and surrounding vegetation that provides semi-open foliar cover
(PCE section (2)). The PCE in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative species.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection--
Monardella viminea section of this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to M. viminea habitat and potential management
considerations. We are considering exclusion of a portion of Unit 4 (7
ac (3 ha)) for M. viminea from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act that is covered by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan under
the MSCP; see Considered Exclusions--Monardella viminea section of this
proposed rule for more information.
Unit 5: West San Clemente Canyon
Unit 5 consists of 16 ac (7 ha) of land made up of 16 ac (7 ha) of
land owned by the California Department of Transportation and less than
1 ac (<1 ha) of private land within the boundaries of the City of San
Diego. This unit is located in the western portion of San Clemente
Canyon, and begins near Clairemont Mesa Boulevard and continues east to
the boundary of MCAS Miramar, in San Diego County, California. We
consider this unit as a separate unit from the other part of San
Clemente Canyon because the Sim J. Harris aggregate mine acts as a
barrier to the physical and biotic continuity between the two portions
of the canyon. This portion of the canyon is wetter and contains more
riparian habitat than the eastern portion of San Clemente Canyon in
Unit 4 and is one of few areas of Monardella viminea habitat where
riparian vegetation persists (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 22). The
western portion of San Clemente Canyon (where Unit 5 is located) is
essential to the recovery of the species because it contains the PCE
and consists of over 500 individuals of M. viminea (Tierra Data 2011,
p. 12). The habitat in this unit provides redundancy and resiliency for
M. viminea, and since not all areas of this unit are occupied by M.
viminea (i.e., the unit is occupied, although there are areas such as
within the canyon where plants are not currently growing), this unit
provides space for the growth and expansion of the species.
Additionally, Unit 5 is essential to recovery because it is made up of
several separate sites along the drainage where groups of naturally
occurring M. viminea plants have been reported in a configuration that
will likely contribute to gene exchange via pollinators. This unit
contains the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of M. viminea, including riparian channels with a natural
hydrological regime (PCE section (1)), ephemeral drainages made up of
rocky or sandy alluvium (PCE section (3)), and surrounding vegetation
that provides semi-open foliar cover (PCE section (2)). The PCE in this
unit may require special management considerations or protection. The
historical flow regime and flooding from the upper portion of the
canyon to this unit is prevented by the Sim J. Harris aggregate mine.
Therefore, in the future, this unit may require management to prevent
overgrowth of annual species that would otherwise be scoured by
periodic flooding. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection--Monardella viminea section of this proposed rule for a
discussion of the threats to M. viminea habitat and potential
management considerations. We are considering exclusion of a portion of
Unit 5 (<1 ac (<1 ha)) from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act that is covered by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan under the
MSCP; see Considered Exclusions--Monardella viminea section of this
proposed rule for more information.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation,
we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent
[[Page 33910]]
alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid
the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent alternatives''
(at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during
consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions may affect subsequently listed species or designated
critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect Monardella viminea or its
designated critical habitat require section 7 consultation under the
Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands requiring a
Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a
permit from us under section 10 of the Act) or involving some other
Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) are subject to the section 7 consultation
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical
habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are
not Federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section
7 consultations.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical and
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for Monardella viminea. As
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-
history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat designated for
Monardella viminea, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, should result in consultation with the Service. These
activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter channel morphology or geometry and
resultant hydrology to a degree that appreciably reduces the value of
critical habitat for either the long-term survival or recovery of the
species. Such activities could include, but are not limited to: Water
impoundment, channelization, or diversion; road and bridge construction
(including instream structures); licensing, relicensing, or operation
of dams or other water impoundments; and mining and other removal or
deposition of materials. Examples of effects these activities may have
on Monardella viminea habitat include (but are not limited to) a
permanent removal or reduction of suitable space for individual and
population growth or an increase in woody or herbaceous ground cover
(due to increased moisture levels in soil occupied by the species) that
affects the availability of suitable habitat for reproduction and
survival of M. viminea.
(2) Actions that would significantly directly or indirectly affect
pollinator abundance or efficacy to a degree that appreciably reduces
the value of the critical habitat for the long-term survival or
recovery of the species. Such activities include, but are not limited
to: Destruction of critical habitat that contains pollinators;
introduction of nonnative insects into designated critical habitat that
could compete with native pollinators; clearing or trimming of other
native vegetation in designated critical habitat in a manner that
diminishes appreciably its utility to support Monardella viminea
pollinators (such as clearing vegetation for fuels control); and
application of pesticides.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter sediment deposition
patterns and rates within a stream channel to a degree that appreciably
reduces the value of the critical habitat for the long-term survival or
recovery of the species. Such activities include, but are not limited
to: Excessive sedimentation from road construction; excessive
recreational trail use; residential, commercial, and industrial
development; aggregate mining; and other watershed and floodplain
disturbances. These activities may reduce the amount and distribution
of suitable habitat for individual and population growth, and reduce or
change habitat quality for reproduction, germination, and development.
(4) Actions that would significantly alter biotic features to a
degree that appreciably reduces the value of the critical habitat for
both the long-term survival or the recovery of the species. Such
activities include, but are not limited to, modifying the habitats that
support Monardella viminea to include coastal sage scrub, riparian
scrub, and (in some areas) riparian oak woodland. Proposals for
application of herbicides or fire retardant chemicals could also
necessitate consultation. These activities may reduce the amount or
quality of suitable habitat for individuals and populations; reduce or
change sites for reproduction and development; or reduce the quality of
water, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements.
(5) Actions that could contribute to the introduction or support of
nonnative species into critical habitat to a degree that appreciably
reduces the value of the critical habitat for both the long-term
survival or recovery of Monardella viminea. Such activities include,
but are not limited to: Landscape disturbance or plant introductions
that result in increased numbers of individuals and taxa of nonnative
species for landscape or erosion control purposes, or addition of
nutrients that would fertilize nonnative plant taxa. These activities
may reduce the suitable space for individual and population growth,
reduce or change sites for reproduction and development of offspring,
and introduce or support nonnative plant taxa that compete with M.
viminea.
[[Page 33911]]
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with Federally listed species. We analyzed
the INRMP developed by MCAS Miramar, the only military installation
located within the range of the proposed critical habitat designation
for Monardella viminea, to determine if the military lands are exempt
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (MCAS Miramar)
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar has an approved INRMP (Gene Stout
and Associates 2006) that addresses Monardella viminea, and the Marine
Corps has committed to work closely with us and CDFG to continually
refine the existing INRMP as part of the Sikes Act's INRMP review
process. In accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the
Secretary has determined that conservation efforts identified in the
INRMP provide a benefit to M. viminea occurring on MCAS Miramar (see
the following section that details this determination). Therefore, the
1,546 ac (625 ha) of habitat occupied by M. viminea at the time of
listing on which are found the physical or biological features
essential to its conservation and thus qualified for consideration as
critical habitat on MCAS Miramar are exempt from this critical habitat
designation for M. viminea under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. The
rationale for this exemption is the same as it was for the 2006
designation (71 FR 65662; November 8, 2006).
In the previous final critical habitat designation for Monardella
viminea, we exempted MCAS Miramar from the designation of critical
habitat (71 FR 65662; November 8, 2006). We based this decision on the
conservation benefits to M. viminea identified in the INRMP developed
by MCAS Miramar in May 2000, and the updated INRMP prepared by MCAS
Miramar in October 2006 (Gene Stout and Associates et al. 2006). We
determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP provide a
benefit to M. viminea on MCAS Miramar (Gene Stout and Associates et al.
2006, Section 7, p. 17). We reaffirm that continued conservation
efforts on MCAS Miramar provide a benefit to M. viminea. Therefore,
lands containing features essential to the conservation of M. viminea
on this installation are exempt from this proposed critical habitat
designation for M. viminea under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
Provisions in the INRMP for MCAS Miramar benefit Monardella viminea
by requiring efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to this species and
riparian watersheds. All M. viminea suitable habitat is managed as
specified for Level 1 or Level 2 Habitat Management Areas defined by
the INRMP (Kassebaum 2010, pers. comm.). Under the INRMP, Level I
Management Areas receive the highest conservation priority of the
various Management Areas on MCAS Miramar. The conservation of
watersheds in the Level I Management Areas is achieved through:
(1) Education of base personnel;
(2) Implementation of proactive measures that help avoid accidental
impacts (such as signs and fencing);
(3) Development of procedures to respond to and restore accidental
impacts; and
(4) Monitoring of M. viminea occurrences on MCAS Miramar (Gene
Stout and Associates et al. 2006, Section 7, pp. 17-23).
Additionally, MCAS Miramar's environmental security staff reviews
projects and enforces existing regulations and base orders that avoid
and minimize impacts to natural resources, including M. viminea and its
habitat. The INRMP for MCAS Miramar provides a benefit to M. viminea
and includes measures designed to prevent degradation or destruction of
the species' riparian habitat.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that Monardella viminea
habitat on MCAS Miramar is subject to the MCAS Miramar INRMP and that
conservation efforts identified in the INRMP provide and will continue
to provide a benefit to M. viminea occurring in habitats within and
adjacent to MCAS Miramar. Therefore, lands within this installation are
exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act. We are not including approximately 1,546 ac (625 ha) of habitat in
this proposed critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion
regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any
factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may exercise his
discretion to
[[Page 33912]]
exclude a specific area from critical habitat designation if the
determination is made that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. The Secretary may exercise discretion to
exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic
impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts.
In considering whether to exercise discretion to exclude a particular
area from the designation, we identify the benefits of including the
area in the designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area
from the designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary
may exercise his discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the species.
When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would
provide.
In the case of Monardella viminea, the benefits of critical habitat
include public awareness of M. viminea presence and the species'
critical habitat and the importance of protecting that habitat, and in
cases where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for M.
viminea due to the prohibition against adverse modification or
destruction of critical habitat.
When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of
factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized;
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical and
biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be
adapted in the future in response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
The Secretary is considering whether to exercise discretion to
exclude certain lands from critical habitat. Based on the information
provided by entities seeking exclusion, as well as any additional
public comments we receive, we will evaluate whether certain lands are
appropriate for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis indicates that the
benefits of excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the
benefits of designating those lands as critical habitat, then the
Secretary may exercise his discretion to exclude the lands from the
final designation.
We are considering whether to exercise the delegated discretion of
the Secretary to exclude the areas listed below either because:
(1) Their value for conservation will be preserved for the
foreseeable future by existing protective actions, or
(2) They are appropriate for exclusion under the ``other relevant
factor'' provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
We specifically request comments on the inclusion or exclusion of
these areas, as listed in Table 4. In the paragraphs below, we provide
a preliminary analysis of these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Table 4--Areas Being Considered for Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act From This Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Monardella
viminea.**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Covered by Area Covered by
City of San Diego County of San Diego
Unit* Subarea Plan (acres Subarea Plan (acres
(hectares)) (hectares))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sycamore Canyon............ 47 (19) 36 (15)
2. West Sycamore Canyon....... 21 (9) 0 (0)
3. Spring Canyon.............. 97 (39) 0 (0)
4. East San Clemente Canyon... 7 (3) 0 (0)
5. West San Clemente Canyon... < 1 (< 1) 0 (0)
-----------------------------------------
Total ***..................... 172 (70) 36 (15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.
** The areas being considered for exclusion in this table are included
in Tables 1 and 2 above.
*** All areas that are covered by the HCPs (City of San Diego Subarea
Plan under the MSCP and County of San Diego Subarea Plan under the
MSCP) are considered for exclusion.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors.
We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as
soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and
comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be
available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). During
the development of a final designation, we will consider economic
impacts, public comments, and other
[[Page 33913]]
new information, and areas may be excluded from the final critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have
exempted from the designation of critical habitat those lands on MCAS
Miramar because the base has an approved INRMP which the Marine Corps
is implementing and which we have concluded provides a benefit to
Monardella viminea.
There are no other lands within the proposed designation of
critical habitat that are owned or managed by the Department of
Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security.
Consequently, the Secretary is not considering exercising his
discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on
impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
Land and Resource Management Plans, Conservation Plans, or Agreements
Based on Conservation Partnerships
We consider whether a current land management or conservation plan
(HCPs as well as other types) provides adequate management or
protection for critical habitat of Monardella viminea. In particular,
we consider whether:
(1) The plan is complete and provides the same or better level of
protection from adverse modification or destruction than is likely to
result from a consultation under section 7 of the Act;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or
regulations; and
(3) The plan provides conservation strategies and measures
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
We are considering exercising our delegated discretion to exclude
proposed critical habitat covered by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan
and the County of San Diego Subarea Plan under the San Diego Multiple
Species Conservation Program. Our review of the plans under section
4(b)(2) of the Act is consistent with our commitments to the City and
County in the Implementing Agreements (IA) to consider the plans in
future designations of critical habitat for covered species (Service et
al. 1997 p. 23 (City of San Diego IA and Service et al. 1998 p. 23
(County of San Diego IA). We will consider the above criteria and other
relevant factors in making a decision under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)--County of San
Diego Subarea Plan and City of San Diego Subarea Plan
The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive
habitat conservation planning program that encompasses 582,243 (235,626
ha) acres within 12 jurisdictions of southwestern San Diego County. The
MSCP is a subregional plan that identifies the conservation needs of 85
Federally listed and sensitive species, including Monardella viminea,
and serves as the basis for development of subarea plans by each
jurisdiction in support of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits. The subregional
MSCP identifies where mitigation activities should be focused, such
that upon full implementation of the subarea plans approximately
171,920 ac (69,574 ha) of the 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) MSCP plan area
will be preserved and managed for covered species. Conservation of
Monardella viminea is addressed in the sub-regional plan, and in the
City of San Diego and County of San Diego Subarea Plans that we are
considering for exclusion in this rule.
The subregional MSCP identifies where mitigation activities should
be focused, such that upon completion approximately 171,920 ac (69,574
ha) of the 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) MSCP plan area will be preserved for
conservation (MSCP 1998, pp. 2-1, and 4-2 to 4-4).
The City and County Subarea Plans identify areas where mitigation
activities should be focused to assemble its preserve areas (i.e., MHPA
or PAMA). Those areas of the MSCP preserve that are already conserved,
as well as those areas that are designated for inclusion in the
preserve under the plan, are referred to as the ``preserve area'' in
this proposed revised critical habitat designation. When the preserve
is completed, the public sector (i.e., Federal, State, and local
government, and general public) will have contributed 108,750 ac
(44,010 ha) (63.3 percent) to the preserve, of which 81,750 ac (33,083
ha) (48 percent) was existing public land when the MSCP was
established, and 27,000 ac (10,927 ha) (16 percent) will have been
acquired. At completion, the private sector will have contributed
63,170 ac (25,564 ha) (37 percent) to the preserve as part of the
development process, either through avoidance of impacts or as
compensatory mitigation for impacts to biological resources outside the
preserve. Currently, and in the future, Federal and State governments,
local jurisdictions and special districts, and managers of privately
owned land will manage and monitor their land in the preserve for
species and habitat protection (MSCP 1998, pp. 2-1, and 4-2 to 4-4).
The City and County Subarea Plans include multiple conservation
measures that provide benefits to Monardella viminea. The MSCP requires
the City and the County to develop framework and site specific
management plans, subject to the review and approval of the Service and
CDFG, to guide the management of all preserve land under City and
County control. Currently, the framework plans are in place, and the
County of San Diego has developed a site-specific management plan for
the one area under its ownership that contains M. viminea (Sycamore
Canyon), which incorporates requirements to monitor and adaptively
manage M. viminea habitat over time. In contrast, though the City of
San Diego has conserved 100 percent of M. viminea occurrences on City-
owned lands within preserve areas (City of San Diego 1997, p. 127), it
has not developed any site-specific management plan for any lands
containing M. viminea, including the lands we are proposing as critical
habitat. Any M. viminea occurrences that occur on private lands that
have not been conserved by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan receive
no management or protection other than that provided by the ESL (almost
all occurrences that occur within the City of San Diego's MSCP Subarea
Plan area have been protected in MSCP reserves; see Factor D discussion
above). The ESL provides
[[Page 33914]]
protection for sensitive biological resources (including Monardella
viminea and its habitat), by ensuring that development occurs ``in a
manner that protects the overall quality of the resources and the
natural and topographic character of the area, encourages a sensitive
form of development, retains biodiversity and interconnected habitats,
maximizes physical and visual public access to and along the shoreline,
and reduces hazards due to flooding in specific areas while minimizing
the need for construction of flood control facilities.'' The ESL was
designed to act as an implementing tool for the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan (City of San Diego 1997, p. 98).
The MSCP also provides for a biological monitoring program, and
Monardella viminea is identified as a first priority species for field
monitoring under both the City and County Subarea Plans. Under the
County's subarea plan, Group A plant species, including M. viminea, are
conserved following guidelines outlined by the County's Biological
Mitigation Ordinance, which uses a process that:
(1) Requires avoidance to the maximum extent feasible;
(2) Allows for a maximum 20 percent encroachment into a population
if total avoidance is not feasible; and
(3) Requires mitigation at the 1:1 to 3:1 (in kind) for impacts if
avoidance and minimization of impacts would result in no reasonable use
of the property.
We are considering exercising our delegated discretion to exclude
from critical habitat a portion of Unit 1 covered by the County of San
Diego Subarea Plan under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This area
encompasses approximately 36 ac (15 ha) of land. We are also
considering exercising our delegated discretion to exclude from
critical habitat portions of Units 1-5 covered by the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan under section 4(b)(2) of the act. This area encompasses
172 ac (70 ha) of land. All areas that are covered by the HCPs (City of
San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP and County of San Diego Subarea
Plan under the MSCP) are considered for exclusion.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers
to comment during this public comment period on our specific
assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical
habitat.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during
this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of the
final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from
this proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. We must receive your request within 45
days after the date of this Federal Register publication. Send your
request to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are
requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings,
as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB bases its
determination upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must
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
(small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA
amended RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding.
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. We
have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion of the
draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for
public comment.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. We do not expect the designation of this proposed
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use, because there are no energy or distribution facilities within
the area proposed as critical habitat. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct
our economic analysis, and
[[Page 33915]]
review and revise this assessment as warranted.
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.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Small governments would be affected
only to the extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or
other authorized activities must ensure that their actions would not
adversely affect the critical habitat. Therefore, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this
assessment if appropriate.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
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 Monardella viminea in a takings implications
assessment. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner
actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it
preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of
incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal
funding or permits to go forward. The takings implications assessment
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for M. viminea
would not pose significant takings implications for lands within or
affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of
the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested
information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies
in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently
occupied by Monardella viminea would impose no additional restrictions
to those currently in place and, therefore, has little incremental
impact on State and local governments and their activities. The
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
elements of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation
of the species are specifically identified. This information does not
alter where and what Federally sponsored activities may occur. However,
it may assist these local governments in long-range planning (rather
than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), it
has been determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses
standard property descriptions and identifies the elements of physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of Monardella
viminea within the designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
[[Page 33916]]
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating critical
habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995),
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
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 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes.
We have determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied by
Monardella viminea that contain the features essential for conservation
of the species, and no Tribal lands unoccupied by M. viminea that are
essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we have not
proposed designation of critical habitat for M. viminea on Tribal
lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.12(h), revise the entry for ``Monardella linoides
ssp. viminea'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Monardella viminea............... Willowy monardella.. U.S.A. (CA), Mexico Lamiaceae.......... E 649 17.96(a) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by revising critical habitat
for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (willowy monardella) under Family
Lamiaceae to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Lamiaceae: Monardella viminea (willowy monardella)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for San Diego County,
California, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent element of the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
Monardella viminea is riparian channels with ephemeral drainages and
adjacent floodplains:
(i) With a natural hydrological regime, in which:
(A) Water flows only after peak seasonal rainstorms;
(B) High runoff events periodically scour riparian vegetation and
redistribute alluvial material to create new stream channels, benches,
and sandbars; and
(C) Water flows for usually less than 48 hours after a rain event,
without long-term standing water;
(ii) With surrounding vegetation that provides semi-open, foliar
cover with:
(A) Little or no herbaceous understory;
[[Page 33917]]
(B) Little to no canopy cover;
(C) Open ground cover, less than half of which is herbaceous
vegetation cover;
(D) Some shrub cover; and
(E) An association of other plants, including Eriogonum
fasciculatum (California buckwheat) and Baccharis sarothroides (broom
baccharis);
(iii) That contain ephemeral drainages that:
(A) Are made up of coarse, rocky, or sandy alluvium; and
(B) Contain terraced floodplains, terraced secondary benches,
stabilized sandbars, channel banks, or sandy washes; and
(iv) That have soil with high sand content, typically characterized
by sediment and cobble deposits, and further characterized by a high
content of coarse, sandy grains and low content of silt and clay.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangle maps.
Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North American Datum (NAD) 1983 coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Monardella
viminea follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 33918]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.038
[[Page 33919]]
(6) Unit 1: Sycamore Canyon and West Sycamore Canyon, San Diego
County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 1.]
(ii) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 2.]
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 1 and Unit 2, Sycamore Canyon and West
Sycamore Canyon, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.039
[[Page 33920]]
(7) Units 3 and 4: Spring Canyon and East San Clemente Canyon, San
Diego County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 3.]
(ii) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 4.]
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 3 and Unit 4, Spring Canyon and East San
Clemente Canyon, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.040
[[Page 33921]]
(8) Unit 5: West San Clemente Canyon, San Diego County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 5.]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, West San Clemente Canyon, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.041
* * * * *
Dated: May 25, 2011.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-13912 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C