13394 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0076; 

4500030114] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), 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 reviewed 

and updated the threats analysis that we 

completed for the taxon in 1998, when 

it was listed as a subspecies. We also 

reviewed the status of the new species, 

Monardella stoneana. We retain the 

listing status of Monardella viminea as 

endangered, and we remove protections 

afforded by the Act from those 

individuals now recognized as the 

separate species, Monardella stoneana, 

because the new species does not meet 

the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act. We also revise 

designated critical habitat for 

Monardella viminea. In total, 

approximately 122 acres (50 hectares) in 

San Diego County, California, fall 

within the boundaries of the critical 

habitat designation. We are not 

designating critical habitat for 

Monardella stoneana because this 

species does not warrant listing under 

the Act. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

April 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule and the 

associated final economic analysis are 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments and 

materials received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in preparing this 

final rule, are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at the 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. 

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: 

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 designation of critical habitat for M. 

viminea under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.), and our conclusion that M. 

stoneana does not meet the definition of 

endangered or threatened under the Act. 

For more information on the biology 

and ecology of M. viminea and M. 

stoneana, refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54938) and the 

critical habitat rule published November 

8, 2006 (71 FR 65662). For new 

information specific to M. viminea and 

M. stoneana, including species 

descriptions, distributions, taxonomic 

ranks, and nomenclature, as well as new 

information on soils, potential 

pollinators, and current threats to the 

two species not included in our original 

listing or critical habitat rules for M. 

linoides ssp. viminea, refer to the 

proposed rule to designate revised 

critical habitat for M. viminea published 

in the Federal Register on June 9, 2011 

(76 FR 33880). For information on the 

associated draft economic analysis for 

the proposed rule to designate revised 

critical habitat, refer to the document 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 28, 2011 (76 FR 59990). 

Procedural Aspects of This Rule 

In 2003, Elvin and Sanders proposed 

a taxonomic split of the previously 

listed entity Monardella linoides ssp. 

viminea into two distinct species. The 

Service initially disagreed with the 

segregation and classification of M. 

stoneana as a distinct species due to 

lack of sufficient supportive evidence 

presented by Elvin and Sanders (Bartel 

and Wallace 2004, pp. 1–3), but upon 

review of corroborating genetic analysis 

by Prince (2009), we accept the 

treatment of Elvin and Sanders (2003). 

This treatment found that some discrete 

occurrences that were previously 

identified as the listed entity 

Monardella linoides ssp. viminea do not 

in fact represent that entity, but rather 

a separate taxon. We also accept, and 

will use here, the scientific name 

Monardella viminea for the listed 

willowy monardella. Elvin and Sanders 

(2003, p. 426) provided the name 

Monardella stoneana for plants they 

determined were sufficiently distinct 

from willowy monardella to warrant 

recognition at the species rank. These 

authors returned willowy monardella to 

species status as M. viminea, the name 

under which it was originally described. 

In addition, Elvin and Sanders (2003, 

p. 431) point out its distinctiveness from 

M. linoides taxa in San Diego County, 

California. 

Several consequences result from the 

change in taxonomy and recognition of 

the species split. First, we will refer to 

willowy monardella as Monardella 

viminea. Second, the range, description, 

and the magnitude and immediacy of 

threats to the listed entity (now M. 

viminea) have changed. A map of the 

distributions of the two species, M. 

viminea and M. stoneana, is provided in 

Figure 1, below. Third, those 

individuals now recognized as 

M. stoneana, which are identified as 

morphologically and ecologically 

distinct from the listed entity 

(M. viminea), are no longer afforded 

protections by the Act under the name 

M. viminea. 

In this final rule, we present the 

results of a status review for Monardella 

viminea in consideration of its changed 

morphological and ecological 

description and diminished range. We 

also present our revised designation of 

critical habitat for M. viminea. Finally, 

we present the results of our status 

review for those plants previously 

protected under the Act as M. viminea, 

and that are now identified as M. 

stoneana, and conclude M. stoneana 

does not meet the definition of 

endangered or threatened under the Act. 

We first proposed recognizing the 

taxonomic classification of Monardella 

linoides ssp. viminea as a distinct 

species (M. viminea) and reclassifying a 

portion of Monardella linoides ssp. 

viminea as a separate species 

(M. stoneana) in the proposed listing 

and revised critical habitat rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33880). Based on 

the information presented in the 

proposed rule (see Taxonomic and 

Nomenclatural Changes Affecting 

Monardella linoides ssp. viminea of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13395 

proposed rule (76 FR 33880, June 9, 

2011)), and acceptance by the scientific 

community, we finalize the taxonomic 

change and amend the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

17.12(h) to identify the listed entity as 

‘‘Monardella viminea (willowy 

monardella).’’ 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

New Information on Occurrences of 

Monardella viminea and Monardella 

stoneana 

In this document we use the word 

‘‘occurrence’’ when describing the 

location of Monardella viminea plants. 

In this context, we are referring to point 

locations that contain one or more 

M. viminea individuals or to polygons 

representing the boundaries of clumps 

of plants. These point locations or 

polygons may include one or more of 

the ‘‘element occurrences’’ (EOs) as 

described by the California Department 

of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the 

California Natural Diversity Database 

(CNDDB). Utilizing EOs to describe 

locations of M. viminea plants in our 

listing and critical habitat analyses is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER06MR12.000</GPH>
13396 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

consistent with terminology used by the 

Service in previous rules for this 

species. It also provides clarity in 

referencing clumps of plants in canyons 

that may be referred to by multiple or 

changing names. In all other respects in 

this document, ‘‘element occurrence’’ or 

‘‘occurrence’’ references are those from 

the cumulative data of the CNDDB 

(2011a, EOs 1–31). 

As discussed in the June 9, 2011, 

proposed rule (76 FR 33880), 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 

extirpated, leaving 11 extant 

occurrences (Service 2008, p. 5). All 

nine 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.), 2 additional occurrences of 

those 11 extant occurrences have since 

been extirpated, again in the range of M. 

viminea. Additionally, as a result of 

taxonomic changes, the two 

southernmost element occurrences 

previously considered M. linoides ssp. 

viminea were reclassified as M. 

stoneana after the 2008 5-year review, 

leaving seven extant occurrences of 

M. viminea (see Table 1). We now 

consider an eighth occurrence to be 

extant, as described in the following 

paragraphs. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF ELEMENT OCCURRENCES OF MONARDELLA VIMINEA AND MONARDELLA STONEANA BY LOCATION, AND

WHEN THOSE OCCURRENCES WERE KNOWN TO BE EXTANT

Location CNDDB Element Occurrence 

No. (EO) 

Known and 

extant at 

listing 

Extant at 2008 

5-yr review Currently 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 ........................................................ X ........................ 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 

NW Otay Mountain ...................................... 2 .......................................................... ........................ X X 

NW Otay Mountain ...................................... 3 .......................................................... ........................ X X 

Otay Lakes .................................................. 4 .......................................................... X X X 

Buschalaugh Cove ...................................... 5 .......................................................... ........................ X 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, 2011a, 2011b; Service 2008, Table 1; Kassebaum 2010, pers. comm. 

After a new review of Geographical 

Information Systems (GIS) data and the 

most recent survey report from MCAS 

Miramar, we found that an occurrence 

of M. viminea in San Clemente Canyon 

had incorrectly been reported as 

extirpated both in the 2008 5-year 

review and the June 9, 2011, proposed 

rule. Further reviews of data from 

MCAS Miramar showed that plants have 

continuously been present in the 

location that was incorrectly considered 

extirpated (Rebman and Dossey 2006, 

Map 10; Tierra Data 2011, Map 6). 

Therefore, we now recognize EO 12 as 

extant. We believe there are now eight 

element occurrences of M. viminea, and 

that these eight EOs were extant at the 

time of listing. Therefore, we currently 

consider only 10 occurrences to be 

extirpated rather than 11. 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 four 

translocated occurrences is discussed in 

the Geographic Range and Status 

section in the proposed rule (76 FR 

33880, June 9, 2011). 

In addition to two occurrences now 

considered to be Monardella stoneana 

(but considered at listing to be M. 

linoides ssp. viminea), we now know of 

an additional seven occurrences of M. 

stoneana, all in what was once the 

southern range of M. linoides ssp. 

viminea (Figure 1, above). We presume 

those occurrences were extant at the 

time M. linoides ssp. viminea was listed. 

Although we reported in the June 9, 

2011, proposed rule that the single plant 

in the M. stoneana occurrence at Otay 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13397 

Lakes (M. stoneana EO 4, formerly M. 

viminea EO 28) was extirpated by the 

2007 Harris Fire, 2011 surveys by the 

City of San Diego reported a single plant 

had resprouted in the same location 

(City of San Diego 2011a, p. 229). The 

monitor for the city reported that the 

plant was of robust size and height, 

making it more likely to be a resprout 

than a juvenile or seedling (Miller 2011, 

pers. comm.). Therefore, in this final 

rule, we now consider nine occurrences 

of M. stoneana to be extant. 

Throughout this document we refer to 

previous reports and documents, 

including Federal Register publications. 

Information contained in documents 

issued prior to the present document 

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. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

In preparing this final listing rule and 

critical habitat designation, we reviewed 

and considered comments from the 

public on the proposed listing of 

Monardella viminea, proposed removal 

of plants now recognized as M. stoneana 

from the listed entity, and proposed 

designation of critical habitat for M. 

viminea published on June 9, 2011 (76 

FR 33880). As a result of public 

comments and peer review, we made 

slight changes to our analysis of threats 

for both species and the revised 

designation of critical habitat for M. 

viminea. These changes are as follows: 

(1) We added information from a 

Monardella viminea habitat study 

conducted by researchers at MCAS 

Miramar. The study examined three 

different treatments for enhancing 

habitat conditions for M. viminea: hand 

removal of nonnative grasses, herbicide 

application to nonnative grasses, and 

application of cobble to provide rock 

mulch (AMEC 2011, p. 1–1). We also 

added findings from the study to the 

Factor A and Factor C analyses for M. 

viminea, and to the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section. Additionally, we 

added information on habitat 

fragmentation to the Factor A analysis 

for M. viminea. 

(2) Based on information submitted by 

commenters, we added information to 

the five-factor analyses for both species, 

such as the effects of trampling on 

Monardella viminea, the effects of road 

construction on M. stoneana, and 

factors influencing the lack of 

recruitment for M. viminea. 

(3) Based on a suggestion we received 

from a commenter, we added a 

discussion of protections afforded by 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.) to the five-factor analyses for both 

species. 

(4) Based on information presented by 

a commenter, we revised the list of 

activities requiring consultation for 

critical habitat, including removal of 

activities that have previously had no 

detrimental effect on Monardella 

viminea (such as fire retardant use). We 

also removed mention of herbicide 

application as an activity that requires 

consultation because small-scale 

application of herbicide on weeds in 

direct proximity to M. viminea has a 

demonstrated benefit to the species. 

(5) We updated this final rule to 

include information about protections 

afforded to Monardella viminea by the 

newly approved integrated natural 

resources management plan (INRMP) for 

MCAS Miramar. 

(6) Based on information submitted by 

commenters, we updated the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section with measures on 

how to manage and protect essential 

habitat that supports Monardella 

viminea. 

(7) Based on further communication 

with managers of Otay Mountain 

Ecological Reserve, we updated the 

management policies and guidelines for 

the Reserve in the Factor D discussion 

for Monardella stoneana. 

(8) We added further information on 

possible threats posed by illegal border 

crossings to Factor A for Monardella 

stoneana. 

(9) As requested by a commenter, we 

revised the Altered Hydrology section in 

the Factor A analysis for Monardella 

viminea to address changing watershed 

conditions in the range of the species. 

(10) The areas designated as critical 

habitat in this final rule constitute a 

slight revision of the critical habitat for 

Monardella viminea we proposed on 

June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33880). During the 

first public comment period, we 

received notification from MCAS 

Miramar that we were not using the 

most recent boundaries in the proposed 

rule (Dept. of Environmental 

Management, MCAS Miramar 2011, p. 

3). While there was no change in the 

total area identified as critical habitat, 

ownership area totals in some areas did 

change, as shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP AREA TOTALS BETWEEN PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES

Proposed critical habitat Final critical habitat 

Federal 

ac (ha) 

State/local 

ac (ha) 

Private 

ac (ha) 

Federal 

ac (ha) 

State/local 

ac (ha) 

Private 

ac (ha) 

Unit 1—Sycamore Canyon ...................... 156 (63) 25 (10) 170 (69) 153 (62) 22 (8) 175 (70) 

Unit 2—West Sycamore Canyon ............. 550 (222) 27 (11) 0 (0) 551 (223) 26 (11) 0 (0) 

Unit 3—Spring Canyon ............................ 176 (71) 5 (2) 92 (37) 170 (69) 5 (2) 98 (40) 

Unit 4—East San Clemente Canyon ....... 454 (184) 13 (5) 0 (0) 462 (187) 5 (2) 0 (0) 

Unit 5—West San Clemente Canyon ...... 210 (85) 16 (7) 1 (<1) 227 (92) 0 (0) 0 (0) 

Total .................................................. 1,546 (626) 86 (35) 263 (106) 1,563 (663) 58 (24) 273 (111) 

Total Essential Habitat ...................... ........................ ........................ 1,895 (767) ........................ ........................ 1,895 (767) 

Exempted Proposed 

excluded 

Proposed 

designation * 

Exempted Excluded ** Designated 

1,546 (626) 208 (84) 348 (141) 1,563 (663) 210 (85) 122 (50) 

Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

* ‘‘Proposed designation’’ includes acreages proposed for exclusion. 

** Excluded acreages include private lands covered by the City of San Diego and County of San Diego Subarea Plans under the San Diego 

Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13398 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(11) Table 3 of the proposed rule 

incorrectly listed Unit 1 as consisting of 

158 ac (64 ha) of private land and 36 ac 

(15 ha) of state and local land. The table 

should have shown 170 ac (69 ha) of 

private land and 25 ac (10 ha) of state 

and local land. 

(12) In the June 9, 2011, proposed 

revised rule, we stated that we were 

considering lands owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan and the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan under the San Diego 

Multiple Species Conservation Program 

(MSCP) for exclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. We have now made 

a final determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion of lands covered by the City 

and County Subarea Plans and that 

exclusion of these lands will not result 

in extinction of the species. Therefore, 

the Secretary is exercising his discretion 

to exclude approximately 177 acres (ac) 

(72 hectares (ha)) of land within the 

boundaries of the City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan and 32 ac (13 ha) within 

the County of San Diego Subarea Plan 

from this final designation. For a 

complete discussion of the benefits of 

inclusion and exclusion, see the 

Exclusions section below. 

Only information relevant to actions 

described in this final 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), the 

5-year review completed in March 2008 

(Service 2008), and the proposed rule 

published on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 

33880). Actions described below 

include status reviews of M. viminea 

and M. stoneana and a revision of the 

critical habitat designation for M. 

viminea. 

Previous Federal Actions 

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; we published the proposed 

rule in the Federal Register on June 9, 

2011 (76 FR 33880). The deadline for 

submission of a final revised critical 

habitat designation to the Federal 

Register remains February 17, 2012. 

This rule complies with the conditions 

of the settlement agreement. 

Summary of Factors Affecting 

Monardella viminea 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. 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; or (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 the parcels. Since listing, one of those 

two occurrences, EO 25 from the Carroll 

Canyon Business Park (CNDDB 2011a), 

has been extirpated due to construction 

activities. Additionally, EO 14 in 

Murphy Canyon was believed extirpated 

after listing due to lingering impacts 

from construction activity near Highway 

15 (CNDDB 2011a). 

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 

designates lands to be set aside for 

biological preserves. However, 10 

percent of habitat for M. viminea occurs 

on privately owned land outside of the 

reserve areas. This land includes areas 

in the City of Santee outside of the 

purchased reserve land, and one of the 

four transplanted occurrences in Carroll 

Canyon within the boundaries of the 

City of San Diego (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 2003a, pp. 1–23), although the 

project has been put on hold due to 

bankruptcy issues, and no development 

is currently scheduled (San Diego 

Business Journal 2011, pp. 1–3). 

Another potential impact of increased 

urbanization is habitat fragmentation. 

As noted in the New Information on 

Occurrences of Monardella viminea and 

Monardella stoneana section above, 11 

occurrences of Monardella viminea have 

been extirpated since listing. To some 

extent, M. viminea evolved in a 

naturally fragmented landscape, as it 

occurs in individual drainages. In 

natural conditions, some habitat 

connectivity could be provided through 

pollinator movement between 

occurrences in close proximity to each 

other. Uninterrupted habitat within 

canyons is also important for 

maintaining the downstream flows that 

create secondary benches and sandbars 

upon which M. viminea grows, and for 

scouring nonnative grasses from those 

areas. Thus, under unaltered conditions, 

habitat fragmentation is not a threat to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13399 

M. viminea. However, urbanization 

(particularly in areas surrounding 

occurrences of M. viminea in Carroll 

and Lopez Canyons) interrupts 

pollinator movement and natural 

streamflow in the canyons, and 

urbanization could prevent movement 

and decrease genetic diversity of the 

species. Additionally, in San Clemente 

Canyon, the Sim J. Harris aggregate 

mine acts as a barrier to the physical 

and biotic continuity, and as a barrier to 

natural water flow between the east and 

west halves of the canyon, although 

natural habitat for pollinators remains. 

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 

most remaining large occurrences (with 

more than 100 clumps of M. viminea) 

are found on MCAS Miramar, with the 

exception of Spring Canyon (CNPS 

2011, p. 7). All M. viminea on MCAS 

Miramar occurs within Level I or II 

management areas (see Exemptions 

below for explanation of the two levels 

of management). Management areas on 

MCAS Miramar provide a guide for 

mitigation actions for development on 

the base, and are organized based ‘‘on 

differing resource conservation 

requirements and management 

concerns’’ (Gene Stout and Associates et 

al. 2011, p. 5–2). Level I and II 

management areas are those that contain 

sensitive species. Specific mitigation 

measures within Level I and II 

management areas depend on the 

surrounding habitat type. For temporary 

habitat loss in riparian corridors, all 

actions must include measures to 

minimize direct impact to the habitat, 

decrease erosion and runoff, and 

provide for a 2:1 ratio of habitat 

enhancement and restoration for 

endangered and threatened plants. For 

permanent habitat loss within riparian 

areas where listed species are present, 

the following actions occur: Creation of 

a corridor for wildlife movement of 500 

feet (ft) (150 meters (m)) or less, 

assurance of no net loss of wetland 

habitat, and suitable compensation for 

occupied habitat at a 2:1 ratio (Gene 

Stout and Associates et al. 2011, Tables 

6.2.2.2a, 6.2.2.2b). Therefore, although 

urbanization does threaten some 

occurrences of Monardella viminea, and 

effects from habitat fragmentation may 

occur on the edge of the species’ range, 

the threat to the species’ habitat is not 

significant across the range of the 

species. 

Sand and Gravel Mining 

Sand and gravel mining was 

identified at the time of listing as 

adversely affecting Monardella linoides 

ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938, October 13, 

1998). Sand and gravel mining has 

broad-scale disruptive qualities to 

native ecosystems (Kondolf et al. 2002, 

p. 56). The larger (340 individuals) of 

two occurrences found on private land 

at the time of listing was identified as 

being threatened by sand and gravel 

mining, which 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 been 

extirpated, either by altered drainage 

patterns or construction unrelated to 

mining operations (CNDDB 2011a, EOs 

3 and 25). Currently, we are not aware 

of any ongoing mining activities or 

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 be 

a threat to M. viminea now or in the 

future. 

Altered Hydrology 

The original listing rule identified 

altered hydrology as a threat to 

Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, 

particularly in those 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 and deposit material for the 

secondary benches and streambeds on 

which the species grows (Scheid 1985, 

pp. 30–31, 34–35). Upstream 

development can disrupt this regime, 

increasing storm runoff that can erode, 

rather than establish, the sandy banks 

and secondary benches upon which M. 

viminea grows. White and Greer (2006, 

p. 131) found that streamflow 

conditions in the Los Pen ̃ asquitos Creek 

system, which includes M. viminea 

occurrences in Carroll and Lopez 

Canyons, have changed drastically from 

historical conditions. Their study 

estimated that urbanization of the area 

increased from 9 percent in 1973, to 37 

percent in 2000, and that, 

correspondingly, runoff in the canyons 

increased by 200 percent over that same 

period (White and Greer 2006, p. 134). 

Further, strong floods within the 

watershed have increased from 350 to 

700 percent over the same time period, 

with no corresponding increase in 

rainfall (White and Greer 2006, pp. 134– 

135). Such watershed changes can alter 

the riparian vegetation community 

through changes in median and 

minimum daily discharges, dry season 

runoff, and flood magnitudes (White 

and Greer 2006, pp. 133–136). Increased 

strong floods also have the potential to 

wash away plants as large as or larger 

than M. viminea, as has occurred in 

Lopez Canyon during heavy runoff 

following winter storms (Kelly and 

Burrascano 2001, pp. 2–3), where 

flooding severely impacted the M. 

viminea occurrences (Kelly and 

Burrascano 2006, pp. 65–69). 

Additionally, increases in surface and 

subsurface soil moisture (via direct 

effects to the water table associated with 

watershed urbanization), and changes in 

streamflow from ephemeral to 

perennial, adversely affect native plants, 

such as Monardella viminea, that are 

adapted to a drier Mediterranean 

climate (cool moist winters and hot dry 

summers). Monardella viminea has been 

unable to adapt to the increased soil 

moisture and nonnative species 

incursion has been exacerbated by the 

changing water regime (underground 

hydrology) (Burrascano 2007, pers. 

comm.). Nonnative species can smother 

seedling and mature plants and prevent 

natural growth of M. viminea (Rebman 

and Dossey 2006, p. 12). 

Since listing, three occurrences have 

been extirpated due to altered 

hydrological patterns: Cemetery 

Canyon, Carroll Canyon, and western 

San Clemente Canyon (CNDDB 2011a, 

EOs 3, 4, 11). All three of these 

occurrences are on city-owned or 

private land. On MCAS Miramar, 

watersheds on the undeveloped eastern 

half of the base, where over 80 percent 

of Monardella viminea plants are found, 

appear to have retained their natural 

hydrological regime (Rebman and 

Dossey 2006, p. 37). 

Considering the 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 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13400 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Our understanding of fire in firedependent habitats 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 occur can be 

catastrophic, yet re-introduction of fire 

(either accidentally or purposefully) is 

also undesirable, because such fire often 

becomes catastrophic (megafire) as a 

result of high fuel loads due to previous 

lack of fire. This paradox has resulted 

from a disruption of the natural fire 

regime. 

Fire frequency has increased in North 

American Mediterranean shrublands 

since about the 1950s, and studies 

indicate that southern California has the 

greatest increase in wildfire ignitions, 

primarily due to an increase in 

population density beginning in the 

1960s, thus increasing the number of 

human-caused fires (Keeley and 

Fotheringham 2003, p. 240). Increased 

wildfire frequency and decreased fire 

return 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 2003b, 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). 

Threats to the habitat from fire 

exclusion, which impact processes that 

historically created and maintained 

suitable habitat for Monardella viminea, 

may make the species 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 those at 

locations in the Rocky, Cascade, and 

Sierra Nevada mountain ranges (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 (soil property alteration) 

(Keane et al. 2002, p. 8). Where 

naturally occurring fire is excluded, 

species adapted to fire (such as 

M. viminea) are often replaced by 

nonnative invasive species better suited 

to the new fire regime (Keane et al. 

2002, p. 9). 

Some fire management is provided by 

California Department of Forestry and 

Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), which is 

both an emergency response and 

resource protection agency. Though 

CAL FIRE has signed a document to 

assist in management of backcountry 

areas in San Diego County, including 

Sycamore Canyon Preserve with its 

Monardella viminea occurrence 

(Department of Parks and Recreation 

(DPR) 2009, p. 14; County of San Diego 

2011a, p. 1), the land protected under 

this agreement makes up only 2 percent 

of all M. viminea habitat. Therefore, 

although CAL FIRE provides a benefit to 

Sycamore Canyon Preserve and M. 

viminea habitat, it does not alleviate the 

threat to the species from type 

conversion due to frequent fire. 

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 habitat supporting Monardella 

viminea both now and in the 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 that negatively impact 

M. viminea by washing away plants, 

increasing erosion of sandbars and 

secondary benches where 

M. viminea grows, and increasing 

nonnative plant establishment. Habitat 

of this species is also threatened by an 

unnatural fire regime resulting from 

manmade disturbances and activities, 

which in turn can accelerate invasion of 

the area by nonnative plants. Of the 

eight natural and four transplanted 

occurrences of M. viminea, those in 

areas where continued development is 

anticipated may experience further 

alterations to their hydrology and 

unnatural fire regimes. These threats to 

M. viminea habitat are occurring now 

and are expected to continue into the 

future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

To our knowledge, no commercial use 

of Monardella viminea exists. 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 future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Neither disease nor predation was 

known to be a threat affecting 

Monardella linoides ssp. viminea at the 

time of listing (63 FR 54938, October 13, 

1998). Volunteers have since noted 

browsing impacts to occurrences of M. 

viminea in Lopez Canyon by rabbits and 

deer (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, p. 5). 

Monitors at MCAS Miramar reported 

heavy herbivory in multiple canyons 

later in the season after much of the 

species’ growth had occurred (AMEC 

2011, p. 4–9). Many or most seed heads 

were consumed by herbivores in Spring 

Canyon. However, as M. viminea 

resprouts from perennial root crowns 

each year, herbivory is not likely to 

impact its survival or vigor (AMEC 

2011, p. 5–1). Therefore, based on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, neither disease nor 

herbivory constitutes a threat to M. 

viminea now or in the future. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

At the time of listing, regulatory 

mechanisms that provided some 

protection for Monardella linoides ssp. 

viminea that now apply to 

M. 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) 

conservation plans pursuant to 

California’s Natural Community 

Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act; (5) 

land acquisition and management by 

Federal, State, or local agencies, or by 

private groups and organizations; (6) 

The Clean Water Act (CWA); and (7) 

local laws and regulations. The listing 

rule analyzed the potential level of 

protection provided by these regulatory 

mechanisms (63 FR 54938, October 13, 

1998). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13401 

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 HCPs approved 

under section 10 of the Act and Natural 

Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) 

approved by 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 1969 (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 that 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. 

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 Monardella viminea and its 

habitat. 

Approximately 70 percent of the 

remaining habitat for Monardella 

viminea occurs within MCAS Miramar. 

The Marine Corps completed an INRMP 

(2011–2015) with input from the Service 

(Gene Stout and Associates et al. 2011, 

p. ES–2). This new INRMP, which 

replaces the 2006–2010 version, 

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 Level I or II 

management areas, where conservation 

of listed species, including M. viminea, 

is a priority (Gene Stout and Associates 

et al. 2011, pp. 5–2, Table 5–1). It 

should also be noted that Table 5–1 

states that only 85 percent of areas 

identified as essential habitat in the 

2006 critical habitat rule for M. viminea 

(71 FR 65662, November 8, 2006) fall 

within Level I and Level II management 

areas; however, this may be due to 

mapping techniques used by the Service 

in that rule. We acknowledge that 

MCAS Miramar does protect virtually 

all known occurrences in Level I or II 

management areas and that our mapping 

techniques occur on a broad scale. 

Further, we believe our revised critical 

habitat boundaries described in this rule 

better represent habitat essential to M. 

viminea (see Criteria Used to Identify 

Critical Habitat below). 

MCAS Miramar manages invasive 

species, a significant threat to 

Monardella viminea, in compliance 

with Executive Order 13112, which 

states that Federal agencies must 

provide for the control of invasive 

species (Gene Stout and Associates et al. 

2011, 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 et al. 2011, 

p. 7–8). 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 2011, pp. 7–9–7–10). As a 

result, MCAS Miramar is addressing 

threats related to the potential stress of 

fire on individual plants (see Factor E 

discussion, below). Despite the benefits 

to M. viminea provided through the 

INRMP, the species continues to decline 

on MCAS Miramar, likely due to the 

synergistic effects of flood, reduced 

shrub numbers, and exotic species 

encroachment (type conversion) 

following the 2003 Cedar Fire (Tierra 

Data 2011, p. 26). 

Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Under section 404 of the CWA (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the 

discharge of fill material into waters of 

the United States, which include 

navigable and isolated waters, 

headwaters, and adjacent wetlands (33 

U.S.C. 1344). In general, the term 

‘‘wetlands’’ refers to areas meeting the 

Corps’ criteria of hydric soils, hydrology 

(either sufficient annual flooding or 

water on the soil surface), and 

hydrophytic vegetation (plants 

specifically adapted to growing in 

wetlands). Monardella viminea occurs 

exclusively in ephemeral streambeds, 

which episodically experience seasonal 

flows that typically create the 

conditions that meet the Corps’ criteria 

for wetlands. 

Any human activity resulting in 

discharge of dredged or fill material into 

waters of the United States, including 

wetlands, requires a permit from the 

Corps. These include individual permits 

that are issued following a review of an 

individual application and general 

permits that authorize a category or 

categories of activities in a specific 

geographical location or nationwide (33 

CFR parts 320–330). As Monardella 

viminea requires a natural hydrological 

regime to grow and persist, the 

regulation of discharge could prevent 

those flows from being interrupted or 

altered, thus providing a benefit to the 

species and its habitat. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13402 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

State and Local Regulations 

California’s Native Plant Protection Act 

(NPPA) and Endangered Species Act 

(CESA) 

Under provisions of the California 

Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) 

(California Fish and Game (CFG) Code, 

division 2, chapter 10, section 1900 et 

seq.) and CESA (CFG code, division 3, 

chapter 1.5, section 2050 et seq.), 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 CESA and NPPA include 

prohibitions forbidding the ‘‘take’’ of 

State endangered and threatened species 

(CFG code, chapter 10, section 1908 and 

chapter 1.5, section 2080). Under NPPA, 

landowners are exempt from this 

prohibition for take of plants 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 (ITPs) for Statelisted 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; 

(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 NPPA and 

CESA has not been clearly defined 

under State law. NPPA, which has been 

characterized as an exception to the take 

prohibitions of CESA, exempts a 

number of activities from regulation, 

including clearing land for agricultural 

practices or fire control measures; 

removing 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 changing land use 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 or urbanization, altered 

hydrology, or fuel modification. 

California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) 

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. 

CEQA applies to projects proposed to be 

undertaken or requiring approval by 

State and local government agencies. 

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 about 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 CDFG or the Service; 

or any riparian habitat or other sensitive 

natural community identified in local or 

regional plans, policies, regulations, or 

by CDFG or the 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 deciding 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 

document identifies and provides for 

the regional or areawide 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 regional HCP and 

NCCP that has been in place for over 14 

years. Under the umbrella of the MSCP, 

each of the 12 participating 

jurisdictions, including the City of San 

Diego and the County of San Diego, is 

required to prepare a subarea plan that 

implements the goals of the MSCP 

within that particular jurisdiction. The 

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 (referred to as M. linoides ssp. 

viminea) as a covered species. 

Furthermore, the most recent revision of 

the rare plant monitoring review lists M. 

viminea as a recognized narrow 

endemic (McEachern et al. 2007, p. 33). 

The changes mentioned in that report 

have been adopted into the City of San 

Diego’s monitoring plan. The City of 

San Diego Subarea Plan affords 

additional protections to narrow 

endemic species beyond those provided 

generally for all covered species (City of 

San Diego 1997, p. 100). Impacts to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13403 

narrow endemic species within the 

plan’s Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

(MHPA) are avoided, while outside the 

MHPA, impacts to narrow endemic 

species are addressed through 

avoidance, management, enhancement, 

or transplantation to areas identified for 

preservation (City of San Diego 1997, p. 

100). The MHPA was developed by the 

City of San Diego in cooperation with 

partners to target core biological 

resource areas for conservation (City of 

San Diego 1997, p. 1). Currently, all M. 

viminea occurrences within the City of 

San Diego, with the exception of one 

transplanted occurrence, are within the 

boundaries of the MHPA. However, 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 extant 

occurrences of Monardella viminea are 

on lands owned by MCAS Miramar, 

with small numbers of clumps occurring 

on private and county-owned lands. 

Occurrences in Lopez and Sycamore 

Canyons have been protected in MSCP 

reserves and are annually monitored 

(City of San Diego 2010a, 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 M. viminea are not in place for all 

areas where the species occurs. A draft 

plan was previously created for West 

Sycamore Canyon, and a draft plan for 

Spring Canyon is currently in 

development. The plan for West 

Sycamore Canyon was not finalized 

because construction and subsequent 

impacts did not take place. Should 

construction go forward, which is not 

anticipated at this time, the same 

restrictions would still apply and assist 

in reducing any impacts posed by 

construction activities. Additionally, a 

Natural Resource Management Plan has 

been finalized for Los Pen ̃ asquitos 

Canyon Preserve (EO 1) (City of San 

Diego 1998). However, even though this 

plan and the monitoring reports 

frequently identify management needs 

for M. viminea, the actions are not 

carried out on a regular basis to decrease 

threats to the plants such as nonnative 

vegetation encroachment and altered 

hydrology. 

Within the City of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan, further protections are 

afforded by the Environmentally 

Sensitive Lands (ESL) ordinance. 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 

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 as an implementing tool for 

the City of San Diego Subarea Plan (City 

of San Diego 1997, p. 98). 

A monitoring plan was developed for 

the city-owned land within West 

Sycamore Canyon. This land, a total of 

21 ac (9 ha), was included in the 

Sycamore Estates development project. 

This plan included monitoring of 

Monardella viminea occurrences within 

West Sycamore Canyon and provisions 

to prevent altered hydrology to areas 

containing M. viminea through 

construction of 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 yet in West 

Sycamore Canyon. Therefore, the plan 

addressing construction on Sycamore 

Estates is not currently protecting M. 

viminea. 

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 2 percent of Monardella 

viminea habitat occurs on lands within 

the boundaries of the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan. 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 

(County of San Diego 2011b, pp. 4–5). 

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 analyzed 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 that provides a benefit to M. 

viminea by protecting these occurrences 

(see discussion under Factor E), and 

addressing threats from type conversion 

due to increased fire frequency from 

historical conditions (see discussion 

under Factor A). However, 

notwithstanding the benefit to M. 

viminea provided by the INRMP, the 

synergistic effects of flood, reduced 

shrub numbers, increased fire 

frequency, and nonnative species 

encroachment are resulting in a decline 

of M. viminea on the base (see 

discussion under Factor E). While the 

INRMP does not eliminate threats to the 

species from megafire, we do not believe 

that megafire can be eliminated through 

regulatory mechanisms. 

The majority of Monardella viminea 

occurrences outside of MCAS Miramar 

are located on land owned by the City 

of San Diego and receive protection 

under the City of San Diego Subarea 

Plan under the MSCP, which was 

approved under CESA and the NCCP 

Act. The City of San Diego 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. 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 Subarea Plan has not developed 

final monitoring and management plans 

for Monardella 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 from nonnative 

species and alteration of hydrology are 

not actively being implemented because 

the management plans are not yet in 

place. With regard to lands covered by 

the County of San Diego Subarea Plan 

(2 percent of the species’ habitat), 

regulatory mechanisms are in place to 

conserve and manage M. viminea. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13404 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Despite the protections afforded to 

Monardella viminea under the Sikes Act 

through the INRMP for MCAS Miramar 

and the protections afforded by the City 

and County of San Diego Subarea plans 

under the MSCP, 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 

species’ habitat. Monitors have noted 

impacts to M. viminea in Spring Canyon 

from hikers and off-road vehicles 

(Friends of Los Pen ̃ asquitos Canyon 

Preserve, Inc. 2011, p. 4), and from 

mountain bike trails (AMEC 2011, p. 2– 

5). However, these reports are only from 

Spring Canyon, and there is no evidence 

that this threat is impacting the species 

on a population level. Therefore, we do 

not consider trampling to be a 

significant threat across the range of the 

species now or into the future. 

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 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 2006, 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 the frequency, size, and 

intensity of fires, including flame 

duration and length, soil temperature 

during a fire, and after-effects of longterm porosity and soil glassification 

(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 Fiedler 2005, 

p. 19). 

When natural disturbance processes, 

such as fire regime and storm flow 

events, are altered, native and nonnative 

plants can overcrowd 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 by native 

and nonnative plant species (CNDDB 

2011a; EOs 11, 12, 13, and 15). 

Nonnative plants are present throughout 

all canyons on MCAS Miramar where 

M. viminea occurs, occupying areas that 

could 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 free from invasion, 

and areas that support adult plants have 

been reduced in size after the 

encroachment of nonnative species 

(Tierra Data 2011, p. 29). Additionally, 

an area where one occurrence 

monitored by the City of San Diego is 

located has undergone a rapid increase 

in nonnative plant cover from 26 

percent in 2008, to 71 percent in 2010 

(City of San Diego 2008, p. 1; City of San 

Diego 2010a, p. 11). 

A recent study found that seedling 

establishment was highest in areas 

where nonnative vegetation was 

reduced through management, 

demonstrating that increased nonnative 

ground cover can prevent the 

establishment of Monardella viminea 

seedlings (AMEC 2011, p. ES–1). 

Due to the absence or alteration of 

natural disturbance processes within the 

range of Monardella viminea resulting 

in 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 future. 

Small Population Size and Restricted 

Range 

The listing rule identifies the 

restricted range and small population 

size of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea 

as threats (63 FR 54938, October 13, 

1998). These conditions increase the 

possibility of extinction due to 

stochastic (random) events that are 

beyond the natural variability of the 

ecosystem, such as floods, fires, or 

drought (Lande 1993, p. 912; 60 FR 

40549, August 9, 1995). Chance or 

stochastic events have occurred in the 

range of M. viminea, and may continue 

to make M. viminea vulnerable to 

extinction due to its 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 those smallest 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 2011a). As stated earlier, only 

eight occurrences remain. Currently, 

despite their protection on reserve 

lands, many of the largest occurrences 

with multiple clumps and the 

healthiest-looking leaves and flowers 

continue to decline in number. 

In particular, small population size 

makes it difficult for Monardella 

viminea to persist while sustaining the 

impacts of fire, altered hydrological 

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 2006, p. 

14). Since the 2006 surveys by Rebman 

and Dossey at MCAS Miramar, plants 

damaged in the 2003 Cedar 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), 

although some of this decline may be 

attributed to changes in survey methods 

(Tierra Data 2011, pp. 20, 22). No 

empirical information is readily 

available to estimate the rate of 

population decrease or time to 

extinction for M. viminea; however, 

both its habitat and population have 

decreased in size 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 (such as 

periodic fire and scouring floods) to 

reset succession processes, 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 (water 

repellent) conditions, resulting in plants 

receiving an inadequate amount of 

water (Agee 1996, pp. 157–158; Keeley 

2001, p. 87; Keane et al. 2002, p. 8; Arno 

and Fiedler 2005, p. 19). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13405 

Recently, San Diego County has been 

impacted by multiple large fire events, 

a trend that is expected to continue due 

to climate change. A model by Snyder 

et al. (2002, p. 9–3) predicts 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 lowintensity fires to reduce fuels, invasive 

vegetation, and inadequate wildfire 

control or prevention. For example, the 

October 2007 Harris Fire in San Diego 

County burned 20,000 ac (8,100 ha) 

within 4 hours of ignition (California 

Department of Forestry 2007, p. 57). 

Another fire near Orange, California, 

turned into a large 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, burned over 3,000 ac 

(1,200 ha) (USDA 2007, p. 1). 

A narrow endemic (a species that 

occurs only in a very limited geographic 

region), 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 M. viminea occurrences on 

MCAS Miramar and portions of the 

privately owned occurrences 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 was not as severe as 

initially expected, as plants were later 

able to resprout from the root. 

Additionally, new juveniles and 

seedlings occurred primarily on lands 

burned by the 2003 Cedar Fire (Tierra 

Data 2011, p. 16). 

Given the increased frequency of 

megafire within southern California 

ecosystems, and the inability of 

regulatory mechanisms to prevent or 

control these fires, we find that megafire 

has 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 fire, we do not find that 

megafire is a significant threat to 

individual M. viminea plants now, nor 

is it likely to become a significant threat 

in the future. However, as noted in the 

Factor A discussion above, we do find 

that type conversion due to altered fire 

regime and megafire is a threat to the 

habitat that supports M. viminea. 

Climate Change 

Consideration of climate change is a 

component of our analyses under the 

Act. In general terms, ‘‘climate’’ refers to 

the mean and variability of various 

weather conditions such as temperature 

or precipitation, over a long period of 

time (e.g., decades, centuries, or 

thousands of years). The term ‘‘climate 

change’’ thus refers to a change in the 

state of the climate (whether due to 

natural variability, human activity, or 

both) that can be identified by changes 

in the mean or variability of its 

properties and that persists for an 

extended period—typically decades or 

longer (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) 2007a, p. 78). 

Changes in climate are occurring. The 

global mean surface air temperature is 

the most widely used measure of 

climate change, and based on extensive 

analyses, the IPCC concluded that 

warming of the global climate system 

over the past several decades is 

‘‘unequivocal’’ (IPCC 2007a, p. 2). Other 

examples of climate change include 

substantial increases in precipitation in 

some regions of the world and decreases 

in other regions (for these and other 

examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; 

Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35–54, 82–85). 

Various environmental changes are 

occurring in association with changes in 

climate (for global and regional 

examples, see IPCC 2007a, pp. 2–4, 30– 

33; for U.S. examples, see Global 

Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States by Karl et al. 2009, pp. 27, 

79–88). 

Most of the observed increase in 

global average temperature since the 

mid-20th century cannot be explained 

by natural variability in climate, and is 

very likely due to the observed increase 

in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 

atmosphere as a result of human 

activities, particularly emissions of 

carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use 

(IPCC 2007a, p. 5 and Figure SPM.3; 

Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21–35). 

Therefore, to project future changes in 

temperature and other climate 

conditions, scientists use a variety of 

climate models (which include 

consideration of natural processes and 

variability) in conjunction with various 

scenarios of potential levels and timing 

of greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Meehl 

et al. 2007 entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, 

pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, 

pp. 527, 529). 

The projected magnitude of average 

global warming for this century is very 

similar under all combinations of 

models and emissions scenarios until 

about 2030. Thereafter, the projections 

show greater divergence across 

scenarios. Despite these differences in 

projected magnitude, however, the 

overall trajectory is one of increased 

warming throughout this century under 

all scenarios, including those which 

assume a reduction of greenhouse gas 

emissions (Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760– 

764; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555– 

15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). 

Some of the IPCC’s other key global 

climate projections, which they 

expressed using a framework for 

treatment of uncertainties (e.g., ‘‘very 

likely’’ is >90 percent probability; see 

Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22–23) include 

the following: (1) It is virtually certain 

there will be warmer and more frequent 

hot days and nights over most of the 

earth’s land areas; (2) it is very likely 

there will be increased frequency of 

warm spells and heat waves over most 

land areas; (3) it is very likely that the 

frequency of heavy precipitation events, 

or the proportion of total rainfall from 

heavy falls, will increase over most 

areas; (4) it is likely the area affected by 

droughts will increase, that intense 

tropical cyclone activity will increase, 

and that there will be increased 

incidence of extreme high sea level 

(IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). 

Various types of changes in climate 

can have direct or indirect effects on 

species, and these may be positive or 

negative depending on the species and 

other relevant considerations, including 

interacting effects with habitat 

fragmentation or other non-climate 

variables (e.g., Franco et al. 2006; 

Forister et al. 2010; Galbraith et al. 

2010; Chen et al. 2011). Scientists are 

projecting possible impacts and 

responses of ecological systems, habitat 

conditions, groups of species, and 

individual species related to changes in 

climate (e.g., Deutsch et al. 2008; Berg 

et al. 2009; Euskirchen et al. 2009; 

McKechnie and Wolf 2009; Williams et 

al., 2009; Sinervo et al. 2010; Beaumont 

et al. 2011). These and many other 

studies generally entail consideration of 

information regarding the following 

three main components of vulnerability 

to climate change: Exposure to changes 

in climate, sensitivity to such changes, 

and adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, 

p. 89; Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19–22). 

Because aspects of these components 

can vary by species and situation, as can 

interactions among climate and nonclimate conditions, there is no single 

way to conduct our analyses. We use the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available to identify potential impacts 

and responses by species that may arise 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13406 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

in association with different 

components of climate change, 

including interactions with non-climate 

conditions as appropriate. 

Projected changes in climate and 

related impacts can vary substantially 

across and within different regions of 

the world (e.g., IPCC 2007a, pp. 8–12). 

Thus, although global climate 

projections are informative and in some 

cases are the only or the best scientific 

information available, to the extent 

possible we use ‘‘downscaled’’ climate 

projections that provide higherresolution information that is more 

relevant to the spatial scales used to 

assess impacts to a given species 

(see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58–61 for a 

discussion of downscaling). With regard 

to the area of analysis for Monardella 

viminea, downscaled projections are not 

available, 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. 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 (SDCWA) 2011, p. 2) has 

created unusually dry habitat 

conditions. From 2001 to 2010, at one 

of the closer precipitation gauges to the 

species’ range (Lindberg Field, San 

Diego County, California), 7 of 10 years 

had precipitation significantly below 

normal (SDCWA 2011, 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 climate 

change’s effects on particular species, 

including Monardella viminea. 

Therefore, we do not consider global 

climate change a threat to M. viminea, 

now or in the 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 find 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 find no 

evidence that trampling or other natural 

or manmade factors pose a significant 

threat to M. viminea, either now or into 

the 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 change poses a significant threat 

to the species either now or in the 

future. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Several of the threats discussed in this 

finding have the potential to work in 

concert with each other. For example, as 

discussed under Factor A, increased fire 

frequency in habitats supporting 

Monardella viminea can lead to an 

increased density of nonnative 

vegetation. Furthermore, nonnative 

density can become more severe if 

natural flows within a hydrological 

system decrease to the point where they 

no longer scour nonnative grasses from 

secondary benches and sandbanks. We 

find that the synergistic effects of these 

threats combined with reduced shrub 

numbers have resulted in a population 

decline across the range of Monardella 

viminea and the continued population 

decline on MCAS Miramar. Therefore, 

the cumulative impacts of these threats 

may be even greater than the sum of 

their individual impacts and are a likely 

factor in the decline of this species. 

Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to Monardella 

viminea. In our analysis, we find that 

threats attributable to Factor A (The 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range) pose significant 

threats to the species, particularly 

through severe alteration of hydrology 

in Carroll Canyon, Lopez Canyon, and 

western portions of San Clemente 

Canyon. Type conversion and habitat 

degradation due to frequent fire 

represent significant and immediate 

threats to the species across its range. 

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, 

particularly 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. Finally, despite protections 

afforded to M. viminea by the City and 

County of San Diego Subarea Plans 

under the MSCP and the INRMP at 

MCAS Miramar, we find that other 

existing regulatory mechanisms as 

described under Factor D (The 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms) would not provide 

protections adequate to alleviate threats 

to M. viminea in the absence of the Act. 

We find no threats attributable to Factor 

B (Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes), or Factor C (Disease or 

Predation) impacting the species. 

All threats impacting the species 

could be exacerbated by the ongoing 

decline of the species and the small size 

of the few occurrences that remain. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13407 

limited geographic range of M. viminea 

are substantially smaller than originally 

thought, as two occurrences known at 

the time of listing are now considered 

to be M. stoneana. Natural occurrences 

of M. viminea now occur in only six 

watersheds in a very limited area of San 

Diego County. 

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 immediacy and magnitude of 

continuing significant threats, the rapid 

population decline (particularly the 

decline of approximately 45 percent of 

the population on MCAS Miramar since 

2002), and the species’ limited range 

and small population size, we find that 

Monardella viminea continues to be in 

danger of extinction throughout its 

range. Therefore, M. viminea will 

continue to be listed as an endangered 

species under the Act. 

Significant Portion of Range 

The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ 

as any species which is ‘‘in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ The 

definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant 

to this discussion. The Act defines the 

term ‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term 

‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish 

or wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment [DPS] of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature.’’ The 

phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ 

(SPR) is not defined by the statute, and 

we have never addressed in our 

regulations: (1) The consequences of a 

determination that a species is either 

endangered or likely to become so 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range, but not throughout all of its 

range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of 

a range as ‘‘significant.’’ In this rule, we 

list Monardella viminea throughout its 

entire range; therefore, a discussion of 

significant portion of its range is 

unnecessary. 

Summary of Factors Affecting 

Monardella stoneana 

As stated above in the Summary of 

Factors Affecting Monardella viminea 

section, the original listing rule for M. 

linoides ssp. viminea contained a 

discussion of these five factors, as did 

the 2008 5-year review. However, both 

of these documents included 

discussions regarding M. linoides ssp. 

viminea, without separation or 

recognition of M. stoneana or M. 

viminea. Below, each of 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. 

Within the United States, Monardella 

stoneana occurs almost entirely on 

publicly owned land managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

(approximately 34 percent), CDFG 

(approximately 55 percent), and the City 

of San Diego (approximately 7 percent). 

The last 4 percent (6 acres (2 hectares)) 

of habitat supporting M. stoneana is 

privately owned land within the 

boundaries of the County of San Diego’s 

MSCP subarea plan and is slated for 

inclusion in the Otay Ranch Preserve. 

These occurrences are collectively 

protected from habitat destruction or 

modification due to urban development 

because they are conserved and 

managed within the BLM’s Otay 

Mountain Wilderness and the City of 

San Diego’s or CDFG’s preserves under 

the MSCP, or they will be conserved as 

part of the Otay Ranch Preserve under 

the County of San Diego’s MSCP 

subarea plan. This situation contrasts 

with M. viminea occurrences conserved 

by the City of San Diego that do not 

have management plans (see also Factor 

D discussion for M. stoneana below and 

Factor D discussion for M. viminea 

above). We have no information about 

the distribution, land ownership, or 

status of M. stoneana populations in 

Mexico. 

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 or in the 

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 there. 

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 regime 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 

the stream banks and rocky cobble upon 

which M. stoneana grows. Floods also 

have the potential to wash away plants 

as large as and 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 2006, 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. 

Monardella 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 future, and thus is not 

a threat to M. stoneana. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13408 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 megafire 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 resilient to the 

effects of frequent fire than coastal sage 

scrub, due to strong recruitment and 

effective germination after repeated fire 

events (Keeley 1987, p. 439; Tyler 1995, 

p. 1009). According to Keane et al. 

(2008, p. 702), chaparral is considered a 

crown-fire ecosystem, meaning an 

ecosystem that has ‘‘mechanisms for 

recovery that include resprouting from 

basal burrs and long-lived seed banks 

that are stimulated to germinate by fire.’’ 

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 been altered by 

the fire suppression activities that have 

occurred in the United States. Some 

researchers claim that the chaparral 

habitat in Baja California is thus not 

affected by megafires that result from 

fire suppression activities (Minnich and 

Chou 1997, pp. 244–245; Minnich 2001, 

pp. 1549–1552). Nevertheless, Keeley 

and Zedler (2009, p. 86) believe that the 

fire regime in Baja California 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 

those 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 of 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, and when fire occurs 

more frequently than the natural 

historic regime, nonnative grasses have 

a greater chance to become established 

and outcompete native vegetation 

(Keeley 2001, pp. 84–85). 

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 paths created and 

used by illegal immigrants (City of San 

Diego 2006, p. 8). This occurrence was 

lost after the 2006 survey, as described 

in the New Information on Occurrences 

of Monardella viminea and Monardella 

stoneana section of this final rule. 

Although the 2008 and 2010 survey 

reports for the Otay Lakes site describe 

habitat disturbances such as type 

conversion due to increased fire 

frequency and invasive species 

(particularly nonnative grasses) (City of 

San Diego 2008, p. 2; City of San Diego 

2010a, p. 5), the surveys also indicate 

that the percent cover of native species 

has increased from 2008 to 2010 (from 

23 to 42 percent) and the percent cover 

of nonnative species has increased (from 

30 to 44 percent) (City of San Diego 

2008, p. 1; City of San Diego 2010a; p. 

5). The most recent survey report (2010) 

described the habitat at this site as ‘‘fair 

to good’’ (City of San Diego 2010a, 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; survey results from 2008 

to 2010 were unchanged (City of San 

Diego 2010b, p. 2). Habitat at the Marron 

Valley site was characterized as ‘‘fair to 

good’’ from 2008 through 2010 (City of 

San Diego 2008, p. 2; City of San Diego 

2010a, p. 11), and improving to ‘‘good 

to very good’’ in 2011 (City of San Diego 

2011a, p. 217). As with the Otay Lakes 

location, type conversion due to 

frequent fire (as described in Factor A) 

and invasion of nonnative grasses was 

described as a disturbance or 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 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 ground 

cover by nonnative species has also 

increased (from 15 to 22 percent) (City 

of San Diego 2008, p. 1; City of San 

Diego 2010a, 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 (San Diego 

Association of Government (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, such as 

Monardella stoneana, given 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 [sic] and then 

gradually decline as the cover of shrub 

and subshrubs inceases [sic].’’ 

Additionally, monitoring data for 

M. stoneana have 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. 

Illegal immigration is another 

potential source of fire within 

Monardella stoneana habitat. However, 

the Otay Mountain area is 

predominantly wilderness area and 

preserve, and is unlikely to receive an 

increase in visitors. Furthermore, in 

2007, construction of the fence along the 

U.S. and Mexico border and other 

enforcement activities in the Otay 

Mountain Wilderness area have reduced 

illegal immigrant activity in this area to 

near zero (Ford 2011, pers. comm.), 

thereby reducing the likelihood of fire 

ignition by this source. Therefore, fire 

ignition due to illegal immigrant 

activities is not a significant threat to 

M. stoneana now, nor is it likely to 

become so in the future. 

Fire remains a stressor to Monardella 

stoneana habitat and many other 

sensitive habitats throughout southern 

California. 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’s mission is the protection of 

lives, property, and natural resources 

from fire, and the preservation of 

timberlands, wildlands, and urban 

forests. CAL FIRES’s protection 

strategies incorporate concepts of the 

National Fire Plan, the California Fire 

Plan, individual CAL FIRE Unit Fire 

Plans, and Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans (CWPPs). Fire 

Protection Plans outline the fire 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13409 

situation within each CAL FIRE Unit 

with descriptions of water supplies, fire 

safety, and vegetation management, 

while CWPPs make the same assessment 

on the community level (CAL FIRE 

2011, p. 1; County of San Diego Fire 

Safe Council, 2011). Planning includes 

other State, Federal, and local 

government agencies as well as Fire Safe 

Councils (CAL FIRE 2011, p. 1). CAL 

FIRE typically takes the lead with regard 

to planning for megafire prevention, 

management, and suppression, and 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 2011a, 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 Monardella stoneana. 

Therefore, based on the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

type conversion due to more frequent 

fire does not pose a threat to Monardella 

stoneana or its associated plant 

communities now or in the future. The 

potential threat 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; these impacts are 

discussed below under Factor E. 

Summary of Factor A 

We evaluated several factors that have 

the potential to destroy, modify, or 

curtail habitat or range of Monardella 

stoneana, including urban development, 

sand and gravel mining, altered 

hydrology, and type conversion due to 

frequent fire. 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 

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 M. 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 future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Neither disease nor predation was 

known to be a threat affecting 

Monardella linoides ssp. viminea at the 

time of listing (63 FR 54938, October 13, 

1998). Data from the CNDDB (CNDDB 

2011b) list herbivory as a potential 

threat to the M. stoneana occurrence 

located on the Otay Ranch Preserve (EO 

4). However, we have no other 

information quantifying the extent of 

this herbivory or its impact on the M. 

stoneana occurrence. Like M. viminea, 

M. stoneana resprouts from a perennial 

root crown each year, a trait that allows 

it to persist through herbivory events 

(AMEC 2011, p. 5–1). Therefore, based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, neither disease 

nor herbivory constitutes a threat to M. 

stoneana. 

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) CESA, as the species 

was listed as endangered in California 

in 1979; (3) CEQA; (4) conservation 

plans pursuant to California’s NCCP 

Act; (5) land acquisition and 

management by Federal, State, or local 

agencies, or by private groups and 

organizations; (6) local laws and 

regulations; (7) CWA; and (8) 

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 

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 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 NEPA 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. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Under section 404 of the CWA, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

regulates the discharge of fill material 

into waters of the United States, which 

include navigable and isolated waters, 

headwaters, and adjacent wetlands 

(33 U.S.C. 1344). In general, the term 

‘‘wetlands’’ refers to areas meeting the 

Corps’ criteria of hydric soils, hydrology 

(either sufficient annual flooding or 

water on the soil surface), and 

hydrophytic vegetation (plants 

specifically adapted to growing in 

wetlands). Monardella stoneana occurs 

exclusively in ephemeral streambeds, 

which episodically experience seasonal 

flows that typically create the 

conditions that meet the Corps’ criteria 

for wetlands. 

Any human activity resulting in 

discharge of dredged or fill material into 

waters of the United States, including 

wetlands, requires a permit from the 

Corps. These include individual permits 

that are issued following a review of an 

individual application and general 

permits that authorize a category or 

categories of activities in a specific 

geographical location or nationwide 

(33 CFR parts 320–330). As Monardella 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13410 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

stoneana requires a natural hydrological 

regime to grow and persist, the 

regulation of discharge could prevent 

those flows from being interrupted or 

altered, thus providing a benefit to the 

species and its habitat. 

Wilderness Act and Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act 

Monardella stoneana is a BLMdesignated sensitive species (BLM 2010, 

pp. 29–30). BLM-designated sensitive 

species are those species that require 

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, where 

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 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 

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 BLM 

has a multiple-use mandate under the 

FLPMA, which allows for grazing, 

mining, and off-road vehicle use, BLM 

also has the ability under the FLPMA to 

establish and implement special 

management areas such as Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern, 

wilderness areas, and research areas. 

BLM’s South Coast Resource 

Management Plan (SCRMP) 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 occurrences 

within the Otay Mountain Wilderness. 

The Otay Mountain Wilderness Act 

provides that the Otay Mountain 

designated wilderness area (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, chainsaw use, 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 (see 43 CFR 6301–6305). 

The memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) between the Service, BLM, the 

County of San Diego, the City of San 

Diego, SANDAG, and 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). The Otay Mountain 

Wilderness 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 Monardella 

stoneana (see City and County of San 

Diego Subarea Plans under the Multiple 

Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) 

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 they will 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 City 

and County of San Diego Subarea Plans 

under the Multiple Species 

Conservation Plan (MSCP) section 

below) also apply to the Otay Mountain 

Wilderness. 

Protections for Monardella stoneana 

are also included in BLM’s draft 

SCRMP. Fire management activities 

occur on Otay Mountain as part of the 

current (1994) SCRMP. At some point in 

the future, on an as-needed basis, 

additional brush clearing and other 

fuels modifications, including burning, 

may occur. 

BLM is collaborating with the Service 

to revise the SCRMP, which covers the 

Otay Mountain Wilderness. 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 2009, pp. 4–171—4– 

172). We believe the management 

regime undertaken by BLM under both 

the current and the draft 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. Although not listed under 

CESA, CDFG does recognize M. 

stoneana as a rare and imperiled plant 

(lists S1.2 and 1B.2). Researchers 

working on plants identified on these 

lists must apply to CDFG’s Rare Plant 

Program to receive research permits to 

study or collect rare plants. 

California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) 

CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000– 

21177) and the CEQA Guidelines 

(California Code of Regulations (CCR) 

title 14, division 6, chapter 3, sections 

15000–15387) require State and local 

agencies to identify the significant 

environmental impacts of their actions 

and avoid or mitigate those impacts, if 

feasible. CEQA applies to projects 

proposed to be undertaken or requiring 

approval by State and local government 

agencies. 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 CDFG or the Service; or any 

riparian habitat or other sensitive 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13411 

natural community identified in local or 

regional plans, policies, regulations, or 

by CDFG or the 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 deciding 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 accordance with 

California Administrative Code 14 CCR 

S 630 (Nelson 2011, pers. comm.), 

which prohibits development and 

includes protection of resources, 

including prohibitions against take of 

plants, introduction of nonnative 

species, and use of pesticides. Such 

management prevents M. stoneana from 

mortality due to increased density of 

nonnative species (see Factor E 

discussion below). 

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 

document identifies and provides for 

the regional or areawide 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 and County of San Diego Subarea 

Plans Under the Multiple Species 

Conservation Plan (MSCP) 

As discussed under Factor D for 

Monardella viminea, the MSCP is a 

regional HCP and NCCP that has been 

in place for over 14 years. 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. Monardella linoides ssp. 

viminea is a covered species under the 

San Diego MSCP (City of San Diego 

1997, Table 3–5). The most recent 

revision of the rare plant monitoring 

review lists M. stoneana as a recognized 

narrow endemic (McEachern et al. 2007, 

p. 33). The changes mentioned in this 

report have been adopted into the City 

of San Diego’s monitoring plan. The 

City of San Diego Subarea Plan affords 

additional protections to narrow 

endemic species beyond those provided 

for all covered species (City of San 

Diego 1997, p. 100). Impacts to narrow 

endemic species within the MHPA are 

avoided, while outside the MHPA, 

impacts to narrow endemic species are 

addressed through avoidance, 

management, enhancement, or 

transplantation to areas identified for 

preservation (City of San Diego 1997, p. 

100). Currently, all M. stoneana 

occurrences within the City of San 

Diego are within the boundaries of the 

MHPA. 

Two known occurrences of 

Monardella stoneana are located within 

the City of San Diego Subarea Plan 

under the MSCP. These 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). These two 

occurrences make up a total of 7 percent 

of the habitat for M. stoneana, and the 

City of San Diego Subarea Plan requires 

preservation of 100 percent of this 

habitat. As discussed above, additional 

impact avoidance and other measures 

under the City’s Subarea Plan will 

protect narrow endemic species such as 

M. stoneana. The subarea plan also 

includes area-specific management 

directives designed to maintain longterm survival of narrow endemics 

(Service 1997, pp. 104–105). 

Additionally, the City has completed a 

fire management plan for the Marron 

Valley area. This plan includes 

addressing unnaturally short fire return 

intervals as a major goal. 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 under the San Diego MSCP covers 

252,132 ac (102,035 ha) in the 

southwestern portion of the County’s 

unincorporated lands, and is 

implemented in part by the Biological 

Mitigation Ordinance (BMO). A total of 

6 ac (2 ha) of privately owned land 

occupied by Monardella stoneana 

occurs within the County on lands 

covered by the County’s MSCP subarea 

plan. 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. 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 (1997) and County 

of San Diego Biological Mitigation 

Ordinance (Ord. Nos. 8845, 9246) 2007). 

The BMO requires that all impacts to 

narrow endemic plant species, 

including M. stoneana, be avoided to 

the maximum extent practicable 

(County of San Diego 2010, 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. 

Apart from the coverage provided by 

the County of San Diego Subarea Plan, 

the 6 ac (2 ha) of private land on Otay 

Mountain where Monardella stoneana is 

known to occur is part of Otay Ranch, 

which is zoned as ‘‘Open Space’’ by the 

County of San Diego and identified as 

part of the County preserve for the 

MSCP. Additionally, this land is 

covered by the Otay Ranch Phase 2 

Resource Management Plan (Otay Ranch 

2002), which was approved by the 

County in 2002, and 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, 

providing additional protection beyond 

that already provided by the County of 

San Diego Subarea Plan (Otay Ranch 

2002, p. 144). The plan includes 

provisions to manage M. stoneana 

habitat in a way that will benefit this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13412 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

species (Otay Ranch 2002, pp. 18–19, 

52–53). 

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 are 

necessary to support a viable population 

of sensitive species (such as Monardella 

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). These 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 RPO, the BMO, and the Subarea 

Plans for the City and County of San 

Diego provide adequate mechanisms to 

conserve M. stoneana in association 

with new development or other 

proposed projects, and for the creation 

of biological reserves. The County of 

San Diego Subarea Plan provides 

protection from new development or 

other proposed projects for the small 

percentage of M. stoneana on private 

land, and includes provisions for 

monitoring and management through 

development of location-specific 

management plans. 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, 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, although providing a 

benefit to the one occurrence on cityowned land, are not enough to protect 

the species as a whole. 

On land owned and managed by 

CDFG and BLM, which includes 

approximately 89 percent of all 

occurrences of Monardella stoneana, 

fire management is provided by CAL 

FIRE. Further protection of natural 

resources on State lands is provided by 

management consistent with the 

Wilderness Act. 

Based on our review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we conclude that 

Monardella stoneana is not threatened 

by inadequate existing regulatory 

mechanisms. Federal, State, and local 

regulatory mechanisms help reduce 

wildfire impacts, primarily to property 

and human safety, but they do not 

adequately protect M. stoneana from 

direct mortality caused by megafire, as 

discussed below under Factor E. 

However, the impact of megafire on 

wildlands is not a threat that can be 

eliminated by regulatory mechanisms. 

Therefore, we do not find existing 

regulations inadequate to protect M. 

stoneana, now or in the 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 due to illegal immigrant 

activity as major management issues 

(City of San Diego 1997, p. 52). All M. 

stoneana clusters occur in close 

proximity to the Mexico border, where 

historically many illegal immigrants 

crossed 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 2011, pers. 

comm.) and thus potential impacts of 

trampling at the Otay Lakes, Marron 

Valley, and Otay Mountain locations. 

While there may be some impacts from 

trampling to individual plants, it is 

unlikely to occur at levels that would 

affect the status of the species as a 

whole. 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 future. 

Nonnative Plant Species 

The listing rule identified 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 2006, 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 

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 as has 

occurred in the vicinity of M. viminea. 

As discussed under Factor A, the 

ground cover of both 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 2010a, p. 11). These observations 

are consistent with those of Minnich 

and Bahre (1995, p. 17), who found that 

ground cover of all herbaceous plants, 

including nonnative grasses, was 

generally absent or consisted of thinly 

scattered plants within the chaparral 

along the California-Baja California 

boundary. 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 because it increases the 

possibility of extinction due to chance 

events, such as floods, fires, or drought, 

outside the natural variability of the 

ecosystem (Lande 1993, p. 912; 63 FR 

54938, October 13, 1998). 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. 

Additionally, Prince (2009, p. 2) 

suggests that multiple undiscovered 

occurrences of M. stoneana may exist in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13413 

the vicinity of Tecate Peak. This area 

has not been extensively surveyed 

because 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 there, 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, currently, 

approximately eight occurrences of M. 

stoneana are known in the Otay 

Mountain area (CNDDB 2011b). 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 have 

not been formally surveyed (EOs 7 and 

8). Additionally, the most recent survey 

for this area was in 2005 (CNDDB 

2011b), so the continued existence of 

the Mexico occurrences and number of 

clumps present cannot be confirmed. 

Any decrease in occurrences may 

result in decreased reproductive 

opportunities due to decreased 

pollination events, and thus decreased 

genetic exchange between canyons. 

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 

population size alone to be a threat. For 

example, the habitat supporting 

Monardella viminea faces significant 

threats from the impacts of fire, altered 

hydrological regimes, and competition 

with nonnative plants. As discussed 

above, M. stoneana does not face such 

threats. 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 2 

decades in the two occurrences known 

since the 1970s and 1980s, respectively 

(CNDDB 2011b; 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 of M. stoneana were 

discovered in 2003 or later, so long-term 

data are not available for this species. 

One of those seven occurrences (EO 5) 

was considered extirpated after the 2007 

Harris Fire, but has since resprouted 

(City of San Diego 2011a, p. 229). 

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, although 

the other occurrence (EO 5) containing 

one clump was extirpated (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 M. stoneana 

is rare and has small populations does 

not indicate that it is in danger of 

extinction now or in the future. 

Therefore, although small population 

size may have the potential to pose a 

threat to M. stoneana, we do not find it 

to be a threat now or in the 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 was not as severe as 

initially thought. 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, Monardella 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, eight of nine EOs burned two 

or more times, and four 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 2011b). In the event of a fire 

that 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 shows that individuals are 

recovering from 98 percent of the 

occurrences on MCAS Miramar being 

burned in the 2003 Cedar Fire. 

Given the increased frequency of 

megafire 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 fire, we do not expect 

that megafire is a significant threat to 

individual M. stoneana plants now, nor 

is it likely to become a threat in the 

future. 

Climate Change 

Please see discussion above in Factor 

E for Monardella viminea regarding 

background on how the Service 

evaluates the possible threat of climate 

change. With regard to the area of 

analysis for Monardella stoneana, 

downscaled projections are not 

available, 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 (SDCWA 2011, p. 2) created 

unusually dry habitat conditions. From 

2001 to 2010, at one of the precipitation 

gauges close to the Monardella stoneana 

occurrences (Lindberg Field, San Diego 

County, California), precipitation 

measured significantly below normal in 

7 out of 10 years (SDCWA 2011, 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). However, specific 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13414 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 on chaparral, the plant 

community associated with Monardella 

stoneana, is not known. 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. 

Despite these differences in the present 

fire regimes between chaparral in 

California and Mexico, Minnich and 

Bahre (1997, p. 20) found that ‘‘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. Therefore, 

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 impacts to listed species 

and their habitats, the best available 

scientific data do not give specific 

evidence for us to formulate accurate 

predictions regarding the effects of 

climate change on particular species, 

including M. stoneana, at this time. 

Therefore, at this time we do not 

consider climate change a current threat 

to M. stoneana, either now or in the 

future. 

Summary of Factor E 

We found no evidence that other 

natural or manmade factors pose a 

significant threat to Monardella 

stoneana. Based on a review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data, trampling and nonnative invasive 

plant species are not significant threats. 

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 

change poses a significant threat to the 

species now or in the future. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As discussed in the Cumulative 

Impacts analysis for Monardella 

viminea, type conversion due to 

frequent fire, nonnative grasses, and 

altered hydrological regimes can work 

in concert to result in the decline of the 

species. However, based on the best 

available scientific information, we did 

not find that invasion by nonnative 

grasses or type conversion due to 

frequent fire are occurring in habitats 

that support M. stoneana, nor did we 

find that hydrology was altered from its 

natural regime to the point where it 

threatens the continued survival of the 

species. Therefore, we do not find 

evidence that any of the potential 

threats discussed in this finding pose 

additional stress to M. stoneana by 

acting in concert with one another. 

Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to Monardella 

stoneana. We found no significant 

threats to M. stoneana related to Factors 

A, B, C, D, or E, as described above. 

After an assessment of potential threats 

including urban development, altered 

hydrology, and type conversion due to 

frequent fire as attributable to Factor A 

(The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range), we find that none 

poses a significant threat to the species. 

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 M. 

stoneana as endangered or threatened 

under the Act is not warranted. 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 future. 

Additionally, we have no information to 

demonstrate that predicted climate 

change or megafire will result in a 

significant threat to the species now or 

in the future. 

Although Monardella stoneana has a 

similar life history to M. viminea, based 

on differences in location, land 

ownership and use, and habitat type, we 

find that potential threats impact the 

species differently. Monardella 

stoneana does face some stressors; 

however, the species is found primarily 

on protected (i.e., Federal and State) 

lands. To the extent that the species 

may be experiencing localized impacts, 

analysis of recent and current surveys of 

M. stoneana habitat in the Otay 

Mountain locations indicates that its 

habitat is under protective status and 

remains in relatively good condition. 

Furthermore, unlike M. viminea, M. 

stoneana has not undergone a 

documented 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. 

Finally, we do not consider M. 

stoneana’s small population size in and 

of itself a threat such that the species 

warrants listing, now or in the 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 

(endangered), or likely to become 

endangered (threatened) throughout its 

range now or within the foreseeable 

future. 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. 

Significant Portion of Range 

The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ 

as any species which is ‘‘in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13415 

species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ The 

definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant 

to this discussion. The Act defines the 

term ‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term 

‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish 

or wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment [DPS] of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature.’’ The 

phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ 

(SPR) is not defined by the statute, and 

we have never addressed in our 

regulations: (1) The consequences of a 

determination that a species is either 

endangered or likely to become so 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range, but not throughout all of its 

range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of 

a range as ‘‘significant.’’ 

Two recent district court decisions 

have addressed whether the SPR 

language allows the Service to list or 

protect less than all members of a 

defined ‘‘species’’: Defenders of Wildlife 

v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 

(D. Mont. 2010), concerning the 

Service’s delisting of the Northern 

Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 

15123, April 2, 2009); and WildEarth 

Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), 

concerning the Service’s 2008 finding 

on a petition to list the Gunnison’s 

prairie dog (73 FR 6660, February 5, 

2008). The Service had asserted in both 

of these determinations that it had 

authority, in effect, to protect only some 

members of a ‘‘species,’’ as defined by 

the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or 

DPS), under the Act. Both courts ruled 

that the determinations were arbitrary 

and capricious on the grounds that this 

approach violated the plain and 

unambiguous language of the Act. The 

courts concluded that reading the SPR 

language to allow protecting only a 

portion of a species’ range is 

inconsistent with the Act’s definition of 

‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that 

once a determination is made that a 

species (i.e., species, subspecies, or 

DPS) meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species,’’ it must be placed on the list 

in its entirety and the Act’s protections 

applied consistently to all members of 

that species (subject to modification of 

protections through special rules under 

sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). 

Consistent with that interpretation, 

and for the purposes of this rule, we 

interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion 

of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species’’ to provide an independent 

basis for listing; thus there are two 

situations (or factual bases) under which 

a species would qualify for listing: (1) A 

species may be endangered or 

threatened throughout all of its range; or 

(2) a species may be endangered or 

threatened in only a significant portion 

of its range. If a species is in danger of 

extinction throughout an SPR, it, the 

species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ 

The same analysis applies to 

‘‘threatened species.’’ Therefore, the 

consequence of finding that a species is 

endangered or threatened in only a 

significant portion of its range is that the 

entire species will be listed as 

endangered or threatened, respectively, 

and the Act’s protections will be 

applied across the species’ entire range. 

We conclude, for the purposes of this 

rule, that interpreting the SPR phrase as 

providing an independent basis for 

listing is the best interpretation of the 

Act because it is consistent with the 

purposes and the plain meaning of the 

key definitions of the Act; it does not 

conflict with established past agency 

practice (i.e., prior to the 2007 

Solicitor’s Opinion), as no consistent, 

long-term agency practice has been 

established, and it is consistent with the 

judicial opinions that have most closely 

examined this issue. Having concluded 

that the phrase ‘‘significant portion of 

its range’’ provides an independent 

basis for listing and protecting the entire 

species, we next turn to the meaning of 

‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold 

for when such an independent basis for 

listing exists. 

Although there are potentially many 

ways to determine whether a portion of 

a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we 

conclude, for the purposes of this rule, 

that the significance of the portion of 

the range should be determined based 

on its biological contribution to the 

conservation of the species. For this 

reason, we describe the threshold for 

‘‘significant’’ in terms of an increase in 

the risk of extinction for the species. We 

conclude that a biologically based 

definition of ‘‘significant’’ best conforms 

to the purposes of the Act, is consistent 

with judicial interpretations, and best 

ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for 

the purposes of this rule, a portion of 

the range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if 

its contribution to the viability of the 

species is so important that, without 

that portion, the species would be in 

danger of extinction. 

We evaluate biological significance 

based on the principles of conservation 

biology using the concepts of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation. 

Resiliency describes the characteristics 

of a species that allow it to recover from 

periodic disturbance. Redundancy 

(having multiple populations 

distributed across the landscape) may be 

needed to provide a margin of safety for 

the species to withstand catastrophic 

events. Representation (the range of 

variation found in a species) ensures 

that the species’ adaptive capabilities 

are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, 

and representation are not independent 

of each other, and some characteristic of 

a species or area may contribute to all 

three. For example, distribution across a 

wide variety of habitats is an indicator 

of representation, but it may also 

indicate a broad geographic distribution 

contributing to redundancy (decreasing 

the chance that any one event affects the 

entire species), and the likelihood that 

some habitat types are less susceptible 

to certain threats, contributing to 

resiliency (the ability of the species to 

recover from disturbance). None of these 

concepts is intended to be mutually 

exclusive, and a portion of a species’ 

range may be determined to be 

‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions 

under any one of these concepts. 

For the purposes of this rule, we 

determine if a portion’s biological 

contribution is so important that the 

portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by 

asking whether, without that portion, 

the representation, redundancy, or 

resiliency of the species would be so 

impaired that the species would have an 

increased vulnerability to threats to the 

point that the overall species would be 

in danger of extinction (i.e., would be 

‘‘endangered’’). Conversely, we would 

not consider the portion of the range at 

issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there is 

sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation elsewhere in the species’ 

range that the species would not be in 

danger of extinction throughout its 

range if the population in that portion 

of the range in question became 

extirpated (extinct locally). 

We recognize that this definition of 

‘‘significant’’ establishes a threshold 

that is relatively high. On the one hand, 

given that the consequences of finding 

a species to be endangered or threatened 

in an SPR would be listing the species 

throughout its entire range, it is 

important to use a threshold for 

‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would not 

be meaningful or appropriate to 

establish a very low threshold whereby 

a portion of the range can be considered 

‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible 

increase in extinction risk would result 

from its loss. Because nearly any portion 

of a species’ range can be said to 

contribute some increment to a species’ 

viability, use of such a low threshold 

would require us to impose restrictions 

and expend conservation resources 

disproportionately to conservation 

benefit: listing would be rangewide, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13416 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

even if only a portion of the range of 

minor conservation importance to the 

species is imperiled. On the other hand, 

it would be inappropriate to establish a 

threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too 

high. This would be the case if the 

standard were, for example, that a 

portion of the range can be considered 

‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that 

portion result in the entire species’ 

being currently endangered or 

threatened. Such a high bar would not 

give the SPR phrase independent 

meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 

F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in 

this rule carefully balances these 

concerns. By setting a relatively high 

threshold, we minimize the degree to 

which restrictions will be imposed or 

resources expended that do not 

contribute substantially to species 

conservation. But we have not set the 

threshold so high that the phrase ‘‘in a 

significant portion of its range’’ loses 

independent meaning. Specifically, we 

have not set the threshold as high as it 

was under the interpretation presented 

by the Service in the Defenders 

litigation. Under that interpretation, the 

portion of the range would have to be 

so important that current imperilment 

there would mean that the species 

would be currently imperiled 

everywhere. Under the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ used in this final rule, the 

portion of the range need not rise to 

such an exceptionally high level of 

biological significance. (We recognize 

that if the species is imperiled in a 

portion that rises to that level of 

biological significance, then we should 

conclude that the species is in fact 

imperiled throughout all of its range, 

and that we would not need to rely on 

the SPR language for such a listing.) 

Rather, under this interpretation we ask 

whether the species would be 

endangered everywhere without that 

portion, i.e., if that portion were 

completely extirpated. In other words, 

the portion of the range need not be so 

important that even being in danger of 

extinction in that portion would be 

sufficient to cause the species in the 

remainder of the range to be 

endangered; rather, the complete 

extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of 

the species in that portion would be 

required to cause the species in the 

remainder of the range to be 

endangered. 

The range of a species can 

theoretically be divided into portions in 

an infinite number of ways. However, 

there is no purpose to analyzing 

portions of the range that have no 

reasonable potential to be significant 

and threatened or endangered. To 

identify only those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that: (1) The portions may be 

‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be 

in danger of extinction there or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

Depending on the biology of the species, 

its range, and the threats it faces, it 

might be more efficient for us to address 

the significance question first or the 

status question first. Thus, if we 

determine that a portion of the range is 

not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to 

determine whether the species is 

endangered or threatened there; if we 

determine that the species is not 

endangered or threatened in a portion of 

its range, we do not need to determine 

if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In 

practice, a key part of the portion status 

analysis is whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in some 

way. If the threats to the species are 

essentially uniform throughout its 

range, no portion is likely to warrant 

further consideration. Moreover, if any 

concentration of threats applies only to 

portions of the species’ range that 

clearly would not meet the biologically 

based definition of ‘‘significant’’, such 

portions will not warrant further 

consideration. 

As described in the Determination 

section above, we find that the stressors 

affecting Monardella stoneana are not of 

sufficient imminence, intensity, 

magnitude, or geographic concentration 

such that M. stoneana warrants listing 

under the Act. The stressors affecting M. 

stoneana, including megafire, occur 

across the species’ entire range. 

Additionally, factors that might be 

limited to individual drainages, such as 

altered hydrology or urban 

development, do not threaten M. 

stoneana. Therefore, because M. 

stoneana has no geographical 

concentration of threats, it does not 

qualify for listing based on threats to the 

species in a significant portion of its 

range. 

Decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals in Defenders of Wildlife v. 

Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (2001) and 

Tucson Herpetological Society v. 

Salazar, 566 F.3d 870 (2009) found that 

the Act requires the Service, in 

determining whether a species is 

endangered or threatened throughout a 

significant portion of its range, to 

consider whether lost historical range of 

a species (as opposed to its current 

range) constitutes a significant portion 

of the range of that species. While this 

is not our interpretation of the statute, 

we will consider whether the lost 

historical range might qualify as an SPR 

for Monardella stoneana. 

We evaluated whether the best 

available information indicates that the 

range of Monardella stoneana has 

contracted over time. We have little 

information on the historical range of M. 

stoneana. However, unlike M. viminea, 

M. stoneana has not undergone a 

dramatic decline in population size. 

Monardella stoneana appears to have 

persisted for over 2 decades in the two 

occurrences known in the United States 

since the 1970s and 1980s, respectively 

(see proposed rule at 76 FR 33880, June 

9, 2011). The other seven occurrences of 

M. stoneana in the United States were 

discovered in 2003 or later, so long-term 

data on M. stoneana are not available; 

only one of those seven occurrences has 

since been extirpated. We have almost 

no information about the range of M. 

stoneana in Mexico other than 

observations of plants directly across 

the Mexican border from occurrences in 

the United States. Because the best 

available information indicates that M. 

stoneana has not experienced a 

significant population decline, nor have 

multiple occurrences been extirpated 

within its known range, we are unable 

to find that a significant amount of 

historical range has been lost. Therefore, 

we conclude that there has not been a 

loss of historical habitat that represents 

a significant portion of the range of M. 

stoneana. 

Critical Habitat 

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 

Procedural Aspects of this Rule section 

above), and due to our conclusion that 

M. viminea is endangered, we are 

designating critical habitat for M. 

viminea. Because we have determined 

that M. stoneana does not meet the 

definition of endangered or threatened 

under the Act, we are not designating 

critical habitat for this species. 

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) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13417 

(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 

ensure, 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 nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

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) of the Act 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. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical or biological features within an 

area, we focus on the principal 

biological or physical constituent 

elements (primary constituent elements 

such as roost sites, nesting grounds, 

seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, 

soil type) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Primary 

constituent elements are the elements of 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, 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. For example, an area currently 

occupied by the species but that was not 

occupied at the time of listing may be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and may be included in the 

critical habitat designation. We 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species at the time of listing when 

a designation limited to the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species. 

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 that 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, other unpublished 

materials, or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. 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 needed 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. 

Physical or Biological Features 

In accordance with section 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 by the species at the time of 

listing to designate as critical habitat, 

we consider the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and 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; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13418 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 or 

biological features essential for 

Monardella viminea from studies of this 

species’ habitat, ecology, and life history 

as described in the Critical Habitat 

section of the proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat published in the Federal 

Register on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33880), 

and in the information presented below. 

We also reviewed monitoring reports 

from private firms, the City of San 

Diego, Friends of Los Pen ̃ asquitos 

Canyon, the Service, and MCAS 

Miramar; technical reports; the CNDDB; 

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). We have determined that M. 

viminea requires the physical or 

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, 

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 

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 the 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 

2006, pp. 5–6). The 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 2006, p. 6). 

Cover or Shelter 

Monardella viminea requires open to 

semi-open, foliar (canopy) cover 

consisting 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 

herbaceous cover (Scheid 1985, pp. 32, 

37–38). The species is most commonly 

associated with Eriogonum fasciculatum 

(California buckwheat) and Baccharis 

sarothroides (Scheid 1985, pp. 38–39; 

Rebman and Dossey 26, p. 22; Ince 

2010, p. 3). 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 2006, 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 has its own 

habitat requirements; 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 

(Andrenidae family) nest in upland 

areas (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, p. 8). 

Native bees typically are more efficient 

pollinators than introduced European 

honeybees (Apis mellifera) (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, so adequate habitat should be 

preserved for pollinators in addition to 

the habitat necessary for M. viminea 

plants. In this final critical habitat rule, 

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 

hydrological 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 is 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13419 

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, including the 

floodplains, benches, and sandbars 

where M. viminea grows. Characteristics 

of riparian channels and seasonal 

streamflow 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 2006, 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 for 

Monardella viminea 

Under the Act and its implementing 

regulations, we are required to identify 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of 

Monardella viminea in areas occupied 

at the time of listing, focusing on the 

features’ primary constituent elements 

(PCEs). We consider PCEs to be the 

specific elements of physical or 

biological features that provide for a 

species’ life-history processes and 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 PCE 

specific to Monardella viminea is 

riparian channels with ephemeral 

drainages and adjacent floodplains: 

(a) With a natural hydrological 

regime, in which: 

(1) Water flows only after peak 

seasonal rainstorms; 

(2) High runoff events periodically 

scour riparian vegetation and 

redistribute alluvial material to create 

new stream channels, benches, and 

sandbars; and 

(3) Water flows for usually less than 

48 hours after a rain event, without 

long-term standing water; 

(b) With surrounding vegetation that 

provides semi-open, foliar cover with: 

(1) Little or no herbaceous understory; 

(2) Little to no canopy cover; 

(3) Open ground cover, less than half 

of which is herbaceous vegetation 

cover; 

(4) Some shrub cover; and 

(5) An association of other plants, 

including Eriogonum fasciculatum 

(California buckwheat) and Baccharis 

sarothroides (broom baccharis); 

(c) That contain ephemeral drainages 

that: 

(1) Are made up of coarse, rocky, or 

sandy alluvium; and 

(2) Contain terraced floodplains, 

terraced secondary benches, stabilized 

sandbars, channel banks, or sandy 

washes; and 

(d) 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. 

All units designated as critical habitat 

are currently occupied by Monardella 

viminea and contain the PCE. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the physical or 

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 areas designated as critical 

habitat will require some level of 

management or protection to address 

the current and future threats to the 

physical or 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 features essential to the 

conservation of Monardella 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. 

Special management considerations 

or protection are required within critical 

habitat areas to address these threats. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate 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. 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 

Monardella viminea), although these 

dams must be of adequate size and 

strength to withstand increased storm 

flow caused by urbanization. 

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 designating 

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 final 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 critical 

habitat designation. This final 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13420 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Designated Critical Habitat section in 

the proposed rule that was published on 

June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33880). 

The areas in this final 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 

or biological features identified in the 

PCE that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. For this 

final 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, and areas that are exempt 

from critical habitat under section 

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 

on M. viminea; (b) monitoring reports 

from MCAS Miramar; and (c) 

monitoring reports from private 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. 

(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 eight occurrences 

are currently extant. Based on data from 

the CNDDB, we confirmed that all eight 

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 

accomplished by examining survey 

reports from MCAS Miramar, the City of 

San Diego, and the Friends of Los 

Pen ̃ asquitos Canyon. 

(b) In order to create a scientifically 

based approach to drawing critical 

habitat units, we first examined the 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) located 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 were 

likely to occur, indicating that they were 

poor predictors for areas that contain 

the physical or 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 

delineating potential critical habitat 

areas because Monardella viminea is 

generally described as a riparianassociated 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 or 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 or biological features 

essential to the conservation of 

Monardella 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 are located in an area that 

appears to be a remnant habitat wash at 

the end of West Sycamore Canyon, 

which likely received additional 

streamflow during storm events longer 

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 or 

significantly contribute to population 

persistence. 

The conservation of Monardella 

viminea depends on preservation of 

habitat containing the physical or 

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 2006, p. 24, no EO number). We 

considered that the habitat areas 

outlined using the method described 

above will capture only the habitat that 

contains the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

M. viminea. We determined the distance 

of 490 ft (150 m) was appropriate to 

capture areas surrounding occupied 

streambeds that contain the physical or 

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 or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. Monardella viminea 

requires all components of the PCE for 

growth and reproduction; thus, only 

areas that contained all components 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13421 

storm flow events that wash away 

sandbars rather than scouring them of 

vegetation. Further discussion of why 

we did not include these occurrences as 

critical habitat appears in the Summary 

of Changes from Previously Designated 

Critical Habitat section in the proposed 

rule to designate critical habitat (76 FR 

33880, June 9, 2011). We also removed 

areas within the boundaries of MCAS 

Miramar for this final rule because these 

areas are exempt from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of 

the Act (see Exemptions section below). 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries within this final rule, we 

made every effort to avoid including 

developed areas, such as lands covered 

by buildings, pavement, and other 

structures, because such lands lack 

physical or biological features for 

Monardella viminea. The scale of the 

maps we prepared under the parameters 

for publication in 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 final rule have been 

excluded by text in the rule and are not 

designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 

a Federal action involving these lands 

will 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 or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

We are designating as critical habitat 

lands that we have determined are 

occupied at the time of listing and that 

contain sufficient physical or biological 

features to support the life-history 

processes essential for the conservation 

of the species. All units contain the PCE 

essential to support Monardella viminea 

life processes. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

In the proposed rule published June 9, 

2011 (76 FR 33880), we proposed 

designating five units as critical habitat 

for Monardella viminea. Within the five 

proposed units, we identified essential 

habitat located on MCAS Miramar that 

is exempt from designation under 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. Based on the 

updated boundaries of MCAS Miramar 

(see Summary of Changes from 

Proposed Rule above and Application of 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act below), we 

have determined that additional 

portions of Units 3 and 4, and all of Unit 

5 are exempt under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act. We are excluding the 

remaining portions of Unit 3 and Unit 

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

Summary of Changes from Proposed 

Rule above and Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act below). Thus, in this 

final rule, we designate two critical 

habitat units. The critical habitat 

identified in each unit is shown in 

Table 3, and the changes of ownership 

due to the changed MCAS Miramar 

boundaries are shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF THE 2006 FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR Monardella linoides SSP. Viminea, THE

2011 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR M. viminea, AND THE 2012 FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR M. viminea 

[Note: This table does not include the 255 ac (103 ha) of habitat now identified as occupied by M. stoneana. Further details on land ownership, 

exclusions and exemptions in this final rule are given in Tables 4 and 5] 

Location 

2006 Final critical habitat 2011 Proposed critical habitat 2012 Final critical habitat 

Unit name 

Area containing 

essential features 

ac (ha) 

Unit name 

Area containing 

essential features 

ac (ha) 

Unit name 

Area containing 

essential features 

ac (ha) 

Sycamore Canyon Unit 1 Partial 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) exemption.

373 (151) ............. Unit 1 Partial 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) exemption.

350 (142) ............. Unit 1 Partial 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) exemption.

350 (142). 

West Sycamore 

Canyon.

............................. 529 (214) ............. Unit 2 Partial 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) exemption.

577 (233) ............. Unit 2 Partial 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) exemption.

577 (234). 

Spring Canyon ....... ............................. 245 (99) ............... Unit 3 Partial 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) exemption.

273 (111) ............. No name; all 

acres exempt or 

excluded.

273 (111). 

East San Clemente 

Canyon.

............................. 638 (258) ............. Unit 4 Partial 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) exemption.

467 (189) ............. No name; all 

acres exempt or 

excluded.

467 (189). 

West San Clemente 

Canyon.

............................. 114 (46) ............... Unit 5 Partial 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) exemption.

227 (92) ............... No name; complete exemption.227 (92). 

Lopez Canyon ........ ............................. 77 (31) ................. ............................. 0 (0) ..................... ............................. 0 (0). 

Elanus Canyon ...... ............................. 82 (33) ................. ............................. 0 (0) ..................... ............................. 0 (0). 

Rose Canyon ......... ............................. 185 (75) ............... ............................. 0 (0) ..................... ............................. 0 (0). 

Total Habitat Containing Essential 

Features **.

............................. 2,242 (907) .......... ............................. 1,894 (767) .......... ............................. 1,894 (767). 

Total Exempt .. ............................. 1,863 (754) .......... ............................. 1,546 (626) .......... ............................. 1,563 (633) 

Total Excluded **.............................. 306 (124) (excluded in 2006).............................. 208 (84) (considered for exclusion).............................. 210 (85) (excluded). 

Total Critical 

Habitat.

............................. 73 (30) Designated.............................. 348 (141) Proposed.............................. 122 (50) Designated. 

Note: Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

** See Table 4 for acreages considered for exclusion in each unit. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

The critical habitat areas described 

below constitute our best assessment at 

this time of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat. The two 

units we are designating as critical 

habitat are: (1) Sycamore Canyon, and 

(2) West Sycamore Canyon. Both units 

are currently occupied by the species. 

Both units are also specific areas within 

the geographic area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed. The 

approximate area of each critical habitat 

unit is shown in Table 4, along with 

ownership acreages for all of the units 

described in the proposed rule and 

acreages exempt or excluded in this 

final rule. 

TABLE 4—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR Monardella viminea, SHOWING ESTIMATED AREA IN ACRES (HECTARES), LAND

OWNERSHIP, AREAS EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OF THE ACT, AND AREAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION

4(a)(3)(B)(i) OF THE ACT

Location Federal ac 

(ha) 

State and local 

ac (ha) Private ac (ha) 

Total area 

containing 

essential 

features ac 

(ha) 

Area excluded 

ac (ha) ** 

Areas exempt 

ac (ha) 

Final critical 

habitat 

ac (ha) 

Unit 1. Sycamore Canyon ............................ 153 (62) 22 (9) 175 (71) 350 (142) 80 (32) 153 (62) 118 (48) 

Unit 2. West Sycamore 

Canyon ..................... 551 (222) 26 (11) 0 (0) 577 (234) 22 (9) 551 (222) 4 (2) 

Unit 3. Spring Canyon 170 (69) 5 (2) 98 (40) 273 (111) 103 (42) 170 (69) 0 (0) 

Unit 4. East San 

Clemente Canyon ..... 462 (187) 5 (2) 0 (0) 467 (189) 5 (2) 462 (187) 0 (0) 

Unit 5. West San 

Clemente Canyon ..... 227 (92) 0 (0) 0 (0) 227 (92) 0 (0) 227 (92) 0 (0) 

Total Habitat Area 1,563 (633) 57 (23) 273 (111) 1,894 (767) 210 (85) 1,563 (633) 122 (50) 

Note: Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

** See Exclusions section for details of acreages excluded in each unit. 

We present brief descriptions of the 

two critical habitat units below, and 

reasons why they meet the definition of 

critical habitat for Monardella viminea. 

Unit 1: Sycamore Canyon 

Unit 1 consists of 118 ac (48 ha), and 

is located in Sycamore Canyon at the 

northeastern boundary of MCAS 

Miramar, north of Santee Lakes in San 

Diego County, California. These acres 

fall within the boundaries of the City of 

Santee, which has no approved MSCP. 

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 2006, p. 23). Sycamore Canyon 

is essential to the recovery of the species 

because it supports over 350 individual 

plants, or approximately 18 percent of 

the species’ total population (City of San 

Diego 2010a, p. 257; Tierra Data 2011, 

p. 12), meaning this is an important unit 

that supports genotypes and diversity 

not found among the more 

impoverished occurrences. 

Additionally, this canyon is one of few 

that contains seedlings and juveniles 

(Tierra Data 2011, pp. 16–17), 

demonstrating that reproduction is 

occurring and the habitat in this unit is 

currently suitable to support all lifehistory phases of this declining species. 

The habitat in this unit provides 

redundancy and resiliency for M. 

viminea and, since there are areas of 

suitable habitat 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 or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

M. viminea, including riparian channels 

with a natural hydrological regime, 

ephemeral drainages made up of rocky 

or sandy alluvium, sandy soil with 

sediment and cobble deposits, and 

surrounding vegetation that provides 

semi-open foliar cover. The PCE 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 section of this final rule for 

a discussion of the threats to M. viminea 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 2: West Sycamore Canyon 

Unit 2 consists of 4 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 because 

it contains the largest number of M. 

viminea individuals of any canyon in 

the species’ range and over 25 percent 

of the species’ total population (Tierra 

Data 2011, p. 12), meaning this is an 

important unit that supports genotypes 

and diversity not found among the more 

impoverished occurrences. 

Additionally, this canyon is one of few 

that contains seedlings and juveniles 

(Tierra Data 2011, pp. 16–17), 

demonstrating that reproduction is 

occurring and the habitat in this unit is 

currently suitable to support all lifehistory phases of this declining species. 

The plants in this canyon were recently 

observed to be in good health with little 

to no pressure from herbivores, in 

contrast to many other areas such as San 

Clemente or Carroll Canyon, where 

individuals are declining or are in poor 

health (Tierra Data 2011, p. 25; Ince 

2010, Table 3). The habitat in this unit 

provides redundancy and resiliency for 

M. viminea, and because there are areas 

of suitable habitat 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 critical habitat for M. 

viminea in that portion of West 

Sycamore Canyon located outside of 

MCAS Miramar, includes the physical 

or biological features essential to the 

conservation of M. viminea, including 

riparian channels with a natural 

hydrological regime, ephemeral 

drainages made up of rocky or sandy 

alluvium, sandy soil with sediment and 

cobble deposits, and surrounding 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13423 

vegetation that provides semi-open 

foliar cover. 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 section of this final rule for 

a discussion of the threats to M. viminea 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

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 

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 Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, tribal, 

local, or private lands that require 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 

the Service under section 10 of the Act) 

or that involve some other Federal 

action (such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat, and actions 

on State, tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded or 

authorized, do not require section 7 

consultation. 

As a result of section 7 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, or 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 

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 with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

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 or 

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, when carried out, funded, or 

authorized by a Federal agency, should 

result in consultation for Monardella 

viminea. 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 

affect pollinator abundance or efficacy, 

directly or indirectly, 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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 longterm 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, including 

coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, and 

(in some areas) riparian oak woodland. 

These activities may include large-scale 

application of herbicides, release of 

chemicals or other toxic substances, or 

activities that increase the possibility of 

accidental sewage outflows. 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 could appreciably reduce the value 

of the critical habitat for 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. 

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 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 et al. 2011) that addresses 

Monardella viminea, and the Marine 

Corps has committed to working closely 

with the Service 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 1,563 ac (633 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 are 

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 

determined that essential habitat on 

MCAS Miramar is exempt from the 

designation of critical habitat (71 FR 

65662, November 8, 2006), and we do so 

again in this revised designation. We 

base 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 April 

2011 (Gene Stout and Associates et al. 

2011). We determined that conservation 

efforts identified in the INRMP provide 

a benefit to M. viminea on MCAS 

Miramar (Gene Stout and Associates et 

al. 2011, section 7–19). 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 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 suitable habitat for M. 

viminea is managed as specified for 

Level I or Level II 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13425 

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. 2011, 

p. 7–19). 

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 Monardella 

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 1,563 ac (633 

ha) of habitat in this 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 shall 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. 

In considering whether 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 avoid concentrated 

economic impacts or impacts to national 

security, or whether exclusion may 

result in conservation; the continuation, 

strengthening, or encouragement of 

partnerships; or the implementation of a 

management plan that provides equal to 

or more conservation than a critical 

habitat designation would provide, 

among other factors. For example, we 

consider our continued ability to seek 

new partnerships with future plan 

participants including the State, 

counties, local jurisdictions, 

conservation organizations, and private 

landowners, which together can 

implement conservation actions that we 

would be unable to accomplish 

otherwise. If lands within approved 

management plan areas are designated 

as critical habitat, it would likely have 

a negative effect on our existing 

partnerships and negatively affect our 

ability to establish new partnerships to 

develop and implement these plans, 

particularly plans that address 

landscape-level conservation of species 

and habitats. By excluding these lands, 

we preserve our current partnerships, 

promote future partnerships, and 

encourage additional conservation 

actions in the future. 

When we evaluate conservation plans 

when considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider a variety of 

factors. We consider the benefits of 

working relationships we have formed 

with Federal, State, local and private 

entities and potential conservation 

agreements that may stem from those 

partnerships. Additionally, we consider 

factors including, but not limited to, 

whether the plan is finalized, how it 

provides for the conservation of the 

essential physical or 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. If the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion will 

not result in extinction, the Secretary 

may exercise his discretion to exclude 

the area. 

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 prepared a draft economic 

analysis of the proposed critical habitat 

designation and related factors 

(Industrial Economics Inc., 2011). The 

draft analysis, dated August 25, 2011, 

was made available for public review 

from September 28, 2011, through 

October 28, 2011 (76 FR 59990). 

Following the close of the comment 

period, a final analysis of the potential 

economic effects of the designation was 

developed, taking into consideration the 

public comments and any new 

information (Industrial Economics Inc., 

2012). 

The intent of the final economic 

analysis (FEA) is to identify and analyze 

the potential economic impacts of 

designating critical habitat for 

Monardella viminea. Some of these 

costs will likely be incurred regardless 

of whether we designate critical habitat 

(baseline). The economic impact of the 

final critical habitat designation is 

analyzed by comparing scenarios both 

‘‘with critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without 

critical habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13426 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

habitat’’ scenario represents the baseline 

for the analysis, considering protections 

already in place for the species (for 

example, under the Federal listing and 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). The baseline, therefore, 

represents the costs incurred regardless 

of whether critical habitat is designated. 

The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ scenario 

describes the incremental impacts 

specifically associated with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts are those 

not expected to occur absent the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. In other words, the incremental 

costs are those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis looks retrospectively at 

baseline impacts incurred since the 

species was listed, and forecasts both 

baseline and incremental impacts likely 

to occur with the designation of critical 

habitat. 

The FEA also addresses how potential 

economic impacts are likely to be 

distributed, including an assessment of 

any local or regional impacts of habitat 

conservation and the potential effects of 

conservation activities on government 

agencies, private businesses, and 

individuals. The FEA measures lost 

economic efficiency associated with 

residential and commercial 

development and public projects and 

activities, such as economic impacts on 

water management and transportation 

projects, Federal lands, small entities, 

and the energy industry. 

Decisionmakers can use this 

information to assess whether the effects 

of the designation might unduly burden 

a particular group or economic sector. 

Finally, the FEA looks retrospectively at 

costs that have been incurred since the 

species was listed in 1998 (63 FR 54938, 

October 13, 1998), and considers those 

costs that may occur in the 19 years 

following the designation of critical 

habitat. This 19-year period was 

determined to be appropriate as it 

encompassed the available planning 

information for one of the two entities 

involved in the analysis, (its activities 

are forecast to the year 2030), and 

because limited planning information 

was available for most activities to 

forecast activity levels for projects 

beyond a 19-year timeframe (Industrial 

Economics Inc. 2011, p. 2–14). The FEA 

quantifies economic impacts of 

Monardella viminea conservation efforts 

associated with the following categories 

of activity: Transportation and 

construction. 

The FEA determined that only minor 

economic impacts are likely to result 

from critical habitat designation. This 

conclusion stems from the following 

factors: (1) In the proposed rule, we 

identified 210 ac (85 ha) of lands 

covered by HCPs that protect the species 

and its habitat within the City of San 

Diego and County of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plans, and these 210 acres (85 

ha) have been excluded in this final rule 

from critical habitat due to conservation 

partnerships (see Exclusions Based on 

Other Relevant Impacts below)); (2) as 

all critical habitat units are occupied, 

consultation would occur regardless of 

the designation of critical habitat; and 

(3) modifications to the project to avoid 

jeopardy to Monardella viminea and 

those to avoid adverse modification of 

critical habitat are indistinguishable 

(Industrial Economics Inc. 2012, p. ES– 

2). Further, those administrative costs 

resulting from critical habitat 

designation are minor (total 

undiscounted costs of $10,000) 

(Industrial Economics Inc. 2012, Table 

ES–1). Consequently, the Secretary has 

determined not to exercise his 

discretion to exclude any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for 

Monardella viminea based on economic 

impacts. 

A copy of the FEA with supporting 

documents may be obtained by 

contacting the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or by 

downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

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 

rule, we have exempted from the 

designation of critical habitat those 

lands on MCAS Miramar because the 

base has an approved INRMP that the 

Marine Corps is implementing and that 

we have concluded provides a benefit to 

Monardella viminea. 

In this final rule, we have determined 

that there are no other lands within the 

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 

exercising his discretion to exclude any 

areas from this 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-togovernment 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 

Based on the information provided by 

entities seeking exclusion, as well as 

any additional public comments we 

received, we evaluated whether certain 

lands covered by existing HCPs in the 

critical habitat units were appropriate 

for exclusion from this final designation 

pursuant to the ‘‘other relevant factor’’ 

criterion of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

For the reasons summarized below, the 

Secretary determined to exercise his 

discretion to exclude essential habitat 

covered by the City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan and the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP 

from the revised critical habitat 

designation for Monardella viminea. 

Table 5 provides approximate areas (ac, 

ha) of lands that meet the definition of 

critical habitat but are excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final 

critical habitat rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13427 

TABLE 5—AREAS EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OF THE ACT FROM THIS FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR

Monardella Viminea 

Unit ** 

Area covered by 

City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan 

(ac (ha)) 

Area covered by 

County of San 

Diego Subarea 

Plan 

(ac (ha)) 

1. Sycamore Canyon ............................................................................................................................... 47 (19) 32 (13) 

2. West Sycamore Canyon ...................................................................................................................... 22 (9) 0 (0) 

3. Spring Canyon ..................................................................................................................................... 103 (42) 0 (0) 

4. East San Clemente Canyon ................................................................................................................ 5 (2) 0 (0) 

Total *** ............................................................................................................................................. 177 (72) 32 (13) 

Note: Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

** The areas being excluded that are noted in this table are included in Tables 3 and 4 above. 

*** All areas covered by HCPs (City of San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP and County of San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP) 

are excluded. 

In evaluating whether to exclude 

areas covered by a current land 

management or conservation plan (HCPs 

as well as other types), we consider 

whether: 

(1) The plan is complete and provides 

a level of protection from adverse 

modification or destruction similar to or 

greater than that provided through 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. 

In the case of plant species such as 

Monardella viminea, we also consider 

that including conservation measures to 

protect listed plant species and their 

habitats in an HCP or other conservation 

plan is voluntary. In contrast to listed 

wildlife species, the Act does not 

prohibit take of listed plant species. 

Further, an incidental take permit (ITP) 

under section 10 of the Act is not 

required to authorize impacts to listed 

plants. For this reason, the Service 

actively supports and encourages the 

voluntary inclusion of measures to 

protect listed plants and their habitats 

in an HCP or other conservation plan by 

plan proponents. The prospect of 

potentially avoiding a designation of 

critical habitat for a plant species 

provides a meaningful incentive to plan 

proponents to extend protections for 

plants and their habitat under a 

conservation plan. Achieving 

comprehensive, landscape-level 

protection for plant species, particularly 

narrow endemic plant species such as 

M. viminea, through their inclusion in 

regional conservation plans, provides a 

key conservation benefit for such 

species. Our consideration of the City of 

San Diego and County of San Diego 

Subarea Plans under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act acknowledges the voluntary, 

proactive conservation measures 

undertaken by the City and County to 

protect M. viminea under these plans. 

Taking into account all of the above 

factors, we conclude that essential 

habitat covered by the City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan and the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan under the San Diego 

MSCP warrants exclusion from revised 

critical habitat for Monardella viminea, 

and we are excluding non-Federal lands 

covered by these plans. 

The MSCP is a comprehensive habitat 

conservation planning program that 

encompasses 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) 

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 (County of San Diego 1998, pp. 

2–1, 4–2–4–4). Conservation of 

Monardella viminea is addressed in the 

subregional plan, and in the City and 

County of San Diego Subarea Plans. The 

City and County Subarea Plans identify 

areas where mitigation activities should 

be focused to create its preserve areas 

(Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) or 

Pre-Approved Mitigation Area (PAMA)). 

Those areas of the MSCP preserve that 

are already conserved, as well as those 

designated for inclusion in the preserve 

under the plan, are referred to as the 

‘‘preserve area’’ in this final critical 

habitat designation. When completed at 

the end of the 50-year permit term, the 

public sector (Federal, State, and local 

government, and the 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, 4–2—4–4). 

The City and County Subarea Plans 

include multiple conservation measures 

that provide benefits to Monardella 

viminea. To date, the City of San Diego 

has conserved within the boundaries of 

the MHPA 100 percent of M. viminea 

major occurrences and 100 percent 

habitat for M. viminea that we identified 

as essential in our critical habitat 

analysis (see the Criteria Used to 

Identify Critical Habitat section above). 

Additionally, 100 percent of M. viminea 

occurrences and 100 percent of essential 

habitat for M. viminea within the 

boundaries of the County subarea plan 

(a total of 2 percent of all M. viminea 

habitat) has been conserved in the 

Sycamore Canyon Preserve. 

The MSCP requires the City and the 

County to develop framework and sitespecific management plans, subject to 

the review and approval of the Service 

and CDFG, to guide the management of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13428 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

all preserve land under City and County 

control. Currently, the framework plans 

for both the City and the County are in 

place. The County of San Diego has also 

developed a site-specific management 

plan for the one area under its 

ownership that contains Monardella 

viminea (Sycamore Canyon), which 

incorporates requirements to monitor 

and adaptively manage M. viminea 

habitat over time (City of San Diego 

1997, p. 127). The City has not yet 

completed site-specific management 

plans for some preserve lands 

containing M. viminea, including lands 

we proposed for revised critical habitat 

designation on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 

33880). However, the City is in the 

process of drafting a management plan 

for the Mission Trails area, which 

includes M. viminea occurrences in 

Spring Canyon (EO 26) (Miller 2011, 

pers. comm.). 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). The City of San Diego has 

also completed a natural resource 

management plan for the Los 

Pen ̃ asquitos Canyon Preserve, which 

covers M. viminea habitat (EO 1) that 

does not meet the definition of essential 

habitat (see the Criteria Used to Identify 

Critical Habitat section above). 

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. Currently, the County of San 

Diego does not monitor the one 

occurrence of M. viminea in its 

jurisdiction, but anticipates that 

monitoring will begin in 2013 (City of 

San Diego 2011b, pp. 4–5). The City of 

San Diego monitors its occurrences in 

Sycamore Canyon and Lopez Canyon on 

an annual basis, although no monitoring 

has yet been completed at other 

locations including Spring Canyon (EO 

26). 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 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 32 ac 

(13 ha) of land. We are also exercising 

our delegated discretion to exclude from 

critical habitat portions of Units 1–4 

covered by the City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. This area encompasses 177 ac 

(72 ha) of land. All essential habitat on 

non-federal lands covered by HCPs (City 

of San Diego Subarea Plan under the 

MSCP and County of San Diego Subarea 

Plan under the MSCP) are excluded 

from the final critical habitat 

designation. 

Benefits of Inclusion—City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan and the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan Under the San 

Diego MSCP 

The principal benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the creation of a Federal nexus through 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. This section 

upholds the requirement for Federal 

agencies to ensure actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat. Section 7(a)(2) also requires that 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

on actions that may affect a listed 

species and refrain from undertaking 

actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such species. 

The benefits of inclusion of habitat 

within the critical habitat involves, in 

part, identifying the regulatory benefit 

of critical habitat. Determining these 

benefits is not always straightforward. 

The analysis of effects of a proposed 

project on critical habitat is both 

separate from and different from that of 

the effects of a proposed project on the 

species itself. The jeopardy analysis 

evaluates the action’s impact to survival 

and recovery of the species, while the 

destruction or adverse modification 

analysis evaluates how the action could 

affect the value of critical habitat to the 

listed species. Therefore, the difference 

in outcomes of these two analyses 

represents the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat. The addition of this 

regulatory benefit will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

give rise to different regulatory 

requirements that will then apply to the 

proposed project. Thus, critical habitat 

designations may provide greater 

benefits to the recovery of a species than 

would be provided by listing alone. 

However, for some species, and in 

some locations, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar because effects 

to habitat will often also result in effects 

to the species. Though a jeopardy and 

adverse modification analysis must 

satisfy two different standards, any 

modifications to proposed actions 

resulting from a section 7 consultation 

to minimize or avoid impacts to 

Monardella viminea will be habitatbased. Because M. viminea requires 

properly functioning ephemeral 

streams, drainages, and floodplains, any 

alteration of that system will also likely 

be detrimental to the individual plants 

located in that system. Additionally, all 

lands considered for exclusion are 

currently considered occupied by M. 

viminea and will be subject to the 

consultation requirements of the Act in 

the future regardless of critical habitat 

designation. Thus, it is difficult to 

differentiate measures implemented 

solely to minimize impacts to the 

critical habitat from those implemented 

to minimize impacts to M. viminea. 

Therefore, in the case of M. viminea, we 

believe any additional regulatory 

benefits of critical habitat designation 

would be minimal because the 

regulatory benefits from designation are 

essentially indistinguishable from the 

benefits of listing. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 

that the designation can serve to educate 

landowners and the public regarding the 

potential conservation value of an area, 

and may help focus conservation efforts 

on areas of high conservation value for 

certain species. Any information about 

Monardella viminea and its habitat that 

reaches a wide audience, including 

parties engaged in conservation 

activities, is valuable. In the case of M. 

viminea, however, there have already 

been multiple occasions when the 

public has been educated about the 

species. The framework regional San 

Diego MSCP was developed over a 7- 

year period, while the City and County 

Subarea plans have been in place for 

over a decade. Implementation of the 

subarea plans is formally reviewed 

yearly through publicly available annual 

reports and a public meeting, again 

providing extensive opportunity to 

educate the public and landowners 

about the location of, and efforts to 

conserve, essential M viminea habitat. 

As discussed above, the permit holders 

of the City and County Subarea Plans 

are aware of the value of these lands to 

the conservation of M. viminea, and 

conservation measures are already in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13429 

place to protect essential M. viminea 

and its habitat. 

Furthermore, essential habitat covered 

by the City and County Subarea plans 

was included in the proposed 

designation published in the Federal 

Register on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33880). 

This publication was announced in a 

press release and information was 

posted on the Service’s Web site, which 

ensured that the proposal reached a 

wide audience. Therefore, the 

educational benefits of critical habitat 

designation (such as providing 

information to the City and other 

stakeholders on areas important to the 

long-term conservation of this species) 

have already been realized through 

development and ongoing 

implementation of the City and County 

Subarea plans, by proposing these areas 

as critical habitat, and through the 

Service’s public outreach efforts. 

Critical habitat designation can also 

result in ancillary conservation benefits 

to Monardella viminea by triggering 

additional review and conservation 

through other Federal and State laws. 

The primary State laws that might be 

affected by critical habitat designation 

are CEQA and CESA. However, essential 

habitat within the City and County has 

been identified in the Subarea plans and 

is either already protected or targeted 

for protection under the plans. Thus 

review of development proposals 

affecting essential habitat under CEQA 

by the City and County already takes 

into account the importance of this 

habitat to the species and the 

protections required for the species and 

its habitat under the Subarea plans. 

Similarly, because M. viminea is a Statelisted endangered species under CESA, 

and CDFG is a signatory to the MSCP 

and City and County Subarea plans 

under the NCCP Act, the designation of 

critical habitat within the City and 

County would not result in additional 

conservation for the species and its 

habitat than currently exists under State 

law. The Federal law most likely to 

afford protection to designated M. 

viminea habitat is the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). Projects requiring a permit 

under the CWA, such as a fill permit 

under section 404 of the CWA, and that 

are located within critical habitat or are 

likely to affect critical habitat would 

trigger section 7 consultation under the 

Act. However, as discussed above, we 

conclude the potential regulatory 

benefits resulting from designation of 

critical habitat would be negligible 

because the outcome of a future section 

7 consultation would not result in 

greater conservation for essential M. 

viminea habitat than currently is 

provided for under the City and County 

Subarea plans. 

Based on the above discussion, we 

believe section 7 consultations for 

critical habitat designation conducted 

under the standards required by the 

Ninth Circuit Court in the Gifford 

Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service decision would provide 

little conservation benefit and would be 

largely redundant with those benefits 

already provided by the City and 

County Subarea Plans. Therefore, we 

determine the regulatory benefits of 

designating those acres as Monardella 

viminea critical habitat, such as 

protection afforded through the section 

7(a)(2) consultation process, are 

minimal. We also conclude that the 

educational and ancillary benefits of 

designating essential habitat covered by 

the City and County Subarea plans 

would be negligible because the location 

of essential habitat for this species 

within the City and County and the 

importance of conserving such habitat is 

well known through development and 

implementation of the Subarea plans 

and the independent regulatory 

protection already provided under 

CEQA, CESA, and the City and County 

Subarea plans. 

Benefits of Exclusion—City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan and the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan Under the San 

Diego MSCP 

The benefits of excluding from 

designated critical habitat the 

approximately 177 ac (72 ha) of land 

within the boundaries of the City of San 

Diego Subarea Plan and 32 ac (13 ha) of 

land within the County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan are significant. The 

benefits of excluding essential habitat 

covered by these plans include: (1) 

Continuance and strengthening of our 

effective working relationships with all 

MSCP jurisdictions and stakeholders to 

promote the voluntary conservation of 

Monardella viminea and its habitat; (2) 

allowance for continued meaningful 

collaboration and cooperation in 

working toward recovering this species, 

including conservation benefits that 

might not otherwise occur; (3) 

encouragement of other jurisdictions 

with completed subarea plans under the 

MSCP to amend their plans to cover and 

benefit M. viminea and its habitat; (4) 

encouragement of other jurisdictions to 

complete subarea plans under the MSCP 

(including the cities of Poway and 

Santee) that cover or are adjacent to M. 

viminea habitat; and (5) encouragement 

of additional HCP and other 

conservation plan development in the 

future on other private lands that 

include M. viminea and other federally 

listed plant species. 

We developed close partnerships with 

the City and County of San Diego and 

several other stakeholders through the 

development of the City and County 

Subarea Plans, which voluntarily 

incorporate appropriate protections and 

management for Monardella viminea, its 

habitat, and the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

this species. Those protections are 

consistent with statutory mandates 

under section 7 of the Act to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Furthermore, these 

plans go beyond that requirement by 

including active management and 

protection of essential habitat areas. By 

excluding the approximately 177 ac 

(72 ha) of land within the boundaries of 

the City of San Diego Subarea Plan and 

32 ac (13 ha) within the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan from critical habitat 

designation, we are eliminating a 

redundant layer of regulatory review for 

projects covered by the City and County 

Subarea Plans and encouraging new 

voluntary partnerships with other 

landowners and jurisdictions to protect 

M. viminea and other listed plant 

species. As discussed above, the 

prospect of potentially avoiding a future 

designation of critical habitat provides a 

meaningful incentive to plan 

proponents to extend voluntary 

protections to endangered and 

threatened plants and their habitat 

under a conservation plan. Achieving 

comprehensive, landscape-level 

protection for plant species, particularly 

narrow endemic plant species such as 

M. viminea, through their inclusion in 

regional conservation plans, provides a 

key conservation benefit for such 

species. Our ongoing partnerships with 

the City and County, the larger regional 

MSCP participants, and the landscapelevel multiple species conservation 

planning efforts they promote, are 

essential to achieve long-term 

conservation of M. viminea. 

As noted earlier, some HCP 

permittees have expressed the view that 

designation of lands covered by an HCP 

devalues the conservation efforts of plan 

proponents and the partnerships 

fostered through the development and 

implementation of the plans and would 

discourage development of additional 

HCPs and other conservation plans in 

the future. Where an existing HCP 

provides for protection for a species and 

its essential habitat within the plan area, 

particularly with regard to a listed plant 

species, or where the existence of a 

Federal nexus for future activities is 

uncertain, the benefits of preserving 

existing partnerships by excluding the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

covered lands from critical habitat are 

most significant. Excluding lands 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of an HCP, under these 

circumstances, promotes positive 

working relationships and eliminates 

impacts to existing and future 

partnerships while encouraging 

development of additional HCPs for 

other species. 

Large-scale HCPs, such as the regional 

MSCP and subarea plans issued under 

its framework, take many years to 

develop and foster an ecosystem-based 

approach to habitat conservation 

planning, by addressing conservation 

issues through a coordinated approach. 

If local jurisdictions were to require 

landowners to obtain ITPs under section 

10 of the Act individually prior to the 

issuance of a building permit, the local 

jurisdiction would incur no costs 

associated with the landowner’s need 

for an ITP. However, this approach 

would result in uncoordinated, 

‘‘patchy’’ conservation that would be 

less likely to achieve listed species 

recovery and almost certainly would 

result in less protection for listed plant 

species, which do not require an ITP. 

We, therefore, want to continue to foster 

partnerships with local jurisdictions to 

encourage the development of regional 

HCPs that afford proactive, landscapelevel conservation for multiple species, 

including voluntary protections for 

covered plant species. We believe the 

exclusion from critical habitat of 

covered lands subject to protection and 

management under such plans will 

promote such partnerships and result in 

greater protection for listed species, 

particularly plant species, than would 

be achieved through section 7 

consultation. 

The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan and the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan Under the San 

Diego MSCP 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

exclusion of approximately 177 ac 

(72 ha) of land within the boundaries of 

the City of San Diego Subarea Plan and 

32 ac (13 ha) within the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan from our revised 

designation of critical habitat, and we 

determined the benefits of excluding 

these lands outweigh the benefits of 

including them. The benefits of 

including these lands in the designation 

are small because the regulatory, 

educational, and ancillary benefits that 

would result from critical habitat 

designation are almost entirely 

redundant with the regulatory, 

educational, and ancillary benefits 

already afforded through the City and 

County Subarea Plans and under State 

and Federal law. In contrast to the 

minor benefits of inclusion, the benefits 

of excluding lands covered by the City 

and County Subarea Plans from critical 

habitat are significant. Exclusion of 

these lands from critical habitat will 

help preserve the partnerships we 

developed with local jurisdictions and 

project proponents through the 

development and ongoing 

implementation of the MSCP and the 

City and County Subarea Plans, and aid 

in fostering future partnerships for the 

benefit of listed species. Designation of 

lands covered by the City and County 

Subarea Plans may discourage other 

partners from seeking, amending, or 

completing subarea plans under the 

MSCP framework plan or from pursuing 

other HCPs that cover M. viminea and 

other listed plant species. Designation of 

critical habitat does not require that 

management or recovery actions take 

place on the lands included in the 

designation. The City and County 

Subarea Plans, however, will provide 

for significant conservation and 

management of Monardella viminea 

habitat and help achieve recovery of this 

species through habitat enhancement 

and restoration, functional connections 

to adjoining habitat, and species 

monitoring efforts. Additional HCPs or 

other species-habitat plans potentially 

fostered by this exclusion would also 

help to recover this and other federally 

listed species. Therefore, in 

consideration of the relevant impact to 

current and future partnerships, as 

summarized in the Benefits of Exclusion 

section above, we determined the 

significant benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the minor benefits of critical 

habitat designation. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan and the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan Under the San 

Diego MSCP 

We determined that the exclusion of 

177 ac (72 ha) of land within the 

boundaries of the City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan and 32 ac (13 ha) of land 

within the boundaries of the County of 

San Diego Subarea Plan from the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Monardella viminea will not result in 

extinction of the species. The jeopardy 

standard of section 7 of the Act and 

routine implementation of conservation 

measures through the section 7 process 

due to M. viminea occupancy and 

protection provided by the City and 

County Subarea Plans provide 

assurances that this species will not go 

extinct as a result of excluding these 

lands from the critical habitat 

designation. Therefore, based on the 

above discussion, the Secretary is 

exercising his discretion to exclude 177 

ac (72 ha) of land within the boundaries 

of the City of San Diego Subarea Plan 

and 32 ac (13 ha) of land within the 

boundaries of the County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan from this final critical 

habitat designation. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public, during two comment 

periods, on: the proposed retention of 

the listing status of Monardella viminea 

as endangered; the proposed removal of 

protections afforded by the Act from 

those individual plants now recognized 

as a separate species, M. stoneana; and 

the proposed critical habitat for M. 

viminea. The first comment period 

associated with the publication of the 

proposed rule (76 FR 33880) opened on 

June 9, 2011, and closed on August 8, 

2011. We also requested comments on 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

and associated draft economic analysis 

during a comment period that opened 

on September 28, 2011, and closed on 

October 28, 2011 (76 FR 59990). We did 

not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. We also contacted appropriate 

Federal, State, and local agencies; 

scientific organizations; and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposed rule and draft 

economic analysis during these 

comment periods. 

During the first comment period, we 

received six comment letters directly 

addressing the actions described in the 

proposed rule. During the second 

comment period, we received no 

comment letters addressing the actions 

described in the proposed rule or the 

draft economic analysis. All substantive 

information provided during these 

comment periods has either been 

incorporated directly into this final 

determination or addressed below. 

Comments we received were grouped 

into three general issue categories 

specifically relating to: the proposed 

retention of the listing status of 

Monardella viminea as endangered; the 

proposed removal of protections 

afforded by the Act from those 

individuals now recognized as a 

separate species, M. stoneana; and the 

proposed critical habitat for M. viminea. 

These are addressed in the following 

summary and incorporated into the final 

rule as appropriate. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13431 

from three knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received a response from 

one of the peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewer for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the actions described in this proposed 

rule. While the peer reviewer supported 

the determinations made by the rule, the 

reviewer requested clarification on 

critical habitat designation and threats 

to Monardella viminea and M. stoneana. 

The peer reviewer also provided 

suggestions on additional information 

and analysis to add to the rule. Peer 

reviewer comments are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule as appropriate. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

Comments About Monardella viminea 

(1) Comment: The peer reviewer was 

supportive of the proposed rule. The 

reviewer stated that the proposed 

designation of critical habitat is 

important to the conservation of 

Monardella viminea, and that the 

Service had presented a thorough 

review of scientific literature related to 

the taxonomic split of M. linoides ssp. 

viminea. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s comment. 

(2) Comment: The peer reviewer 

recommended that we provide further 

discussions of hydrological regime in 

watersheds where Monardella viminea 

is found, and its influence on habitat 

dynamics for the species. 

Our Response: We have updated the 

Factor A analysis to include information 

on changing watershed conditions in 

the range of Monardella viminea. 

However, we were only able to find 

information on the Los Pen ̃ asquitos 

watershed, containing Lopez and Carroll 

Canyons, and only information current 

to the year 2000. We invite anyone with 

additional or more recent detailed 

information on hydrological regimes 

relating to M. viminea to submit it to our 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above). 

(3) Comment: The peer reviewer 

noted the dual role of scouring floods 

within drainages containing Monardella 

viminea; floods have the potential to 

destroy sandbars hosting M. viminea 

occurrences, but also can create new 

habitat and remove nonnative 

vegetation. The reviewer recommends 

discussing this aspect of the 

hydrological regime both in the fivefactor analysis and in the description of 

the PCE. 

Our Response: In the description of 

physical or biological features for the 

proposed rule and this final rule, we 

included a description of the 

importance of a natural hydrological 

regime in creating habitat and removing 

nonnative vegetation (see the Physical 

or Biological Features section above). 

Additionally, we include the dual role 

of scouring floods in the PCE (see the 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Monardella viminea section above). 

Further, in the Factor A analysis for 

both species, we stated that 

‘‘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). 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 2006, p. 12). We believe this 

adequately covers the dual role of flood 

regime in M. viminea and M. stoneana 

habitat. 

(4) Comment: The peer reviewer 

recommended addressing any efforts to 

discover previously unknown 

Monardella viminea occurrences and an 

evaluation of the likelihood that other 

unknown occurrences may exist. 

Our Response: Researchers at MCAS 

Miramar regularly survey all suitable 

habitat on the base for Monardella 

viminea. The Service is also aware of 

recent surveys conducted within 

previously unsurveyed side channels of 

Spring Canyon. New M. viminea plants 

were found during this survey (Friends 

of Los Pen ̃ asquitos Canyon Preserve, 

Inc. 2011, p. 11). Surveys have been 

conducted by species experts across the 

current range of the species, but have 

not confirmed any new occurrences, 

although a few unsurveyed canyons 

outside the currently occupied range of 

the species do remain (Burrascano 2011, 

pers. comm.; Kelly 2011, pers. comm.). 

Otherwise, most yearly monitoring 

focuses on known occurrences. 

The species is distinctive in 

appearance and not easily confused 

with other plants when in bloom; 

however, during the fall, the plant dies 

back and could be overlooked, 

particularly within areas with high 

nonnative plant density. Therefore, we 

consider the discovery of previously 

unknown Monardella viminea 

occurrences to be possible, but we have 

no further survey information than what 

is presented here, which is the best 

available scientific information. 

(5) Comment: The peer reviewer 

requested more information on the 

statement that ‘‘all canyon areas on the 

base are protected from development.’’ 

Three comment letters addressed the 

same sentence, noting that it was in 

error. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

our phrasing did not accurately convey 

the state of protections afforded by the 

INRMP. We have clarified the text 

within the Factor D analysis for 

Monardella viminea with language from 

the updated INRMP that better explains 

land management within canyons on 

MCAS Miramar. The Level 1 or Level II 

management areas where almost all M. 

viminea occurrences are found provide 

measures to maintain and enhance 

habitat for sensitive species, such as M. 

viminea, while maintaining maximum 

compatible use for operational 

requirements. Management measures 

include minimizing the effects of 

planned actions on endangered species, 

posting signs identifying sensitive 

habitats, and avoiding threats such as 

trampling. 

(6) Comment: The peer reviewer 

asked if protections in the canyons on 

MCAS Miramar extended upstream and 

would thus protect the plant from 

altered hydrology. 

Our Response: As discussed under 

Factor A for Monardella viminea, all 

riparian areas on the base fall within 

Level I or Level II management areas. 

Furthermore, the INRMP requires all 

construction in riparian areas to contain 

measures for impact avoidance, 

minimization, and compensation, 

including measures to reduce 

stormwater runoff and erosion (Gene 

Stout and Associates et al. 2011, Tables 

6.2.2.2a and 6.2.2.2b). Therefore, the 

protections do extend upstream and 

provide measures to counter altered 

hydrology that could impact M. 

viminea. 

(7) Comment: The peer reviewer 

recommended adding a discussion of 

threats to Monardella viminea and its 

habitat due to habitat fragmentation and 

edge effects. Specifically, the 

commenter recommended discussing: 

Barriers to seed or pollen dispersal; 

trampling; introduction of nonnative 

species; runoff from pesticides, 

herbicides, and fertilizers; and other 

results of human land use. 

Our Response: During the first open 

comment period, we received additional 

information on trampling and weed 

introductions, and we have added it to 

the rule (see the Factor E analyses for 

both species). 

In regard to edge effects, we do not 

consider edge effects in and of 

themselves as a threat, but rather as a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

portion of fragmented habitat where 

threats are more likely to occur. One 

consequence of edge effects, an 

increased presence of nonnative species, 

is discussed in both the Factor A and 

Factor E analyses for Monardella 

viminea. With regard to habitat 

fragmentation, we have added a 

discussion of threats due to habitat 

fragmentation to the Factor A analysis 

for M. viminea. 

With regard to runoff from pesticides, 

herbicides, and fertilizers, we have not 

reviewed any information that shows 

impacts from those factors on 

Monardella viminea or M. stoneana. We 

have listed runoff as an action that may 

require section 7 consultation in the 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard section in our 

inclusion of activities that could 

‘‘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.’’ These activities may include 

large-scale application of herbicides, 

release of chemicals or other toxic 

substances, or activities that increase 

the possibility of accidental sewage 

outflows.’’ However, the best available 

scientific information does not currently 

demonstrate that runoff is, or has 

previously been, a threat impacting 

either of the two species. 

Comments About Monardella stoneana 

(8) Comment: The peer reviewer and 

three commenters requested a further 

clarification to the discussion of small 

population size as it relates to 

Monardella stoneana, including 

demographic and genetic consequences 

of reducing small populations into 

smaller, increasingly isolated 

populations. Two commenters further 

noted that a population the size of M. 

stoneana would be vulnerable to 

stochastic risks. Additionally, the peer 

reviewer thought the current discussion 

on small population size would be 

stronger if it included an expanded 

discussion of M. stoneana’s habitat and 

demographic stability, and provided 

more specific statements on which traits 

may allow it to persist despite its small 

population size. 

Our Response: In regard to the peer 

reviewer’s request to further discuss 

habitat and demographic stability, we 

reiterate that very limited information 

exists on habitat preferences for 

Monardella stoneana. We believe that 

our current analysis of known habitat 

characteristics of M. stoneana and 

information presented in the proposed 

rule (76 FR 33880, June 9, 2011) 

represent an analysis of the best 

available scientific information and all 

known habitat characteristics of the 

species. With regard to the peer 

reviewer’s request for a discussion of 

traits that would allow M. stoneana to 

persist, despite its small population 

size, we note that one important trait 

that likely allows M. stoneana to persist 

is its demonstrated ability to resprout 

after fire (City of San Diego 2011a, p. 

229; Miller 2011, pers. comm.). While 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information does not 

provide further details on how M. 

stoneana might be well adapted to small 

population size, we reiterate that M. 

stoneana has not undergone a 

documented recent decline. The best 

available scientific information 

indicates that this species has persisted 

as a narrow endemic, and that it will 

continue to do so in the future. Recent 

genetic analysis has shown that M. 

stoneana has comparable genetic 

diversity to other rare perennial plant 

species, which provides evidence that 

this species has not undergone a recent 

genetic bottleneck (Prince 2009, p. 20). 

With regard to the request for a 

discussion of small population size, we 

do not consider rarity, in and of itself, 

to be a threat. However, we 

acknowledge that small population size 

can exacerbate existing threats to a 

species. As discussed in the five-factor 

analysis for Monardella stoneana, we 

concluded that stressors do not impact 

the species to the extent that they pose 

a threat to the current status of the 

species. See our response to comment 

36 below for further discussion of small 

population size and the consequences of 

the split of M. linoides ssp. viminea into 

two entities. 

Further, we note that Monardella 

stoneana shows little evidence of 

fragmenting into smaller, more isolated 

populations. We acknowledge that one 

occurrence has undergone a decline 

(CNDDB 2011b, EO 4); however, we 

have no other data demonstrating a 

decrease in population size, and one 

occurrence previously thought to be 

extirpated has resprouted after fire 

(Miller 2011, pers. comm.). 

(9) Comment: The peer reviewer 

stated that a discussion of differing fire 

regimes between the Mexico and U.S. 

populations of Monardella stoneana is 

unnecessary given that all known 

occurrences are found directly across 

the border. 

Our Response: We respectfully 

disagree with the peer reviewer’s 

comment. While it is true that all known 

occurrences of Monardella stoneana 

occur within sight of the Mexican 

border, we believe that there may be 

other unknown occurrences of M. 

stoneana farther south in Baja 

California. Further, an analysis found 

that significant differences in fire 

frequency exist immediately across the 

border (Keeley and Fotheringham 2001, 

p. 1540 and Figure 1b). Therefore, we 

believe that the discussion of differing 

fire frequency is both warranted and 

necessary. 

(10) Comment: The peer reviewer 

recommended a more detailed 

discussion of the possible effects of U.S. 

Border Patrol and illegal immigrant 

activities in areas occupied by 

Monardella stoneana, such as changing 

economic conditions that could cause 

the border fence to fall into disrepair. 

The peer reviewer also requested a 

discussion of any programs the Service 

is aware of to monitor those potentially 

changing conditions and their specific 

effects on occurrences of M. stoneana. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s critical review. We have 

added an expanded discussion of the 

effects of U.S. Border Patrol and illegal 

immigrant activities to the Factor A and 

Factor E discussions for Monardella 

stoneana above, and we added 

information submitted by public 

commenters (see comments 40 and 41 

below). However, we do not have 

adequate information to make a 

determination on how changing 

economic conditions might affect the 

status of the border fence. It is worth 

noting that construction of the border 

fence occurred during times of poor 

economic conditions in the United 

States, so economic circumstances may 

not be a reliable basis upon which to 

judge public or political interest in 

border protection or the likelihood the 

border fence will fall into disrepair. 

With regard to the peer reviewer’s 

query about border monitoring, of the 

four land managers who own land 

where Monardella stoneana occurs 

(BLM, the State of California, the 

County of San Diego, and the City of 

San Diego), the only regular monitoring 

we are aware of is conducted by the City 

of San Diego at their two occurrences 

(EOs 1 and 4). Temporary monitoring 

occurred during the construction of the 

border fence, with surveys conducted 

before construction for rare species, 

including Monardella stoneana (e2M 

2008, p. 1; e2M 2009, p. 1). We 

encourage all agencies and members of 

the public to submit any information on 

changing conditions along the border 

and the consequent impact on M. 

stoneana to our office (see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above). 

(11) Comment: The peer reviewer 

recommended discussing any potential 

changes for MSCP treatment of 

Monardella stoneana given the removal 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13433 

of protections under the Act. First, how 

it would affect the continued protection 

of the species itself if M. stoneana were 

no longer included in the listed entity, 

and whether it would retain its status as 

a narrow endemic. Second, the reviewer 

recommended discussing impacts on 

lands specifically set aside for M. 

linoides ssp. viminea that are now 

determined to be occupied by plants 

identified as M. stoneana, and whether 

they could potentially be available for 

future development or other land use 

changes. 

Our Response: Currently, Monardella 

stoneana is identified as a narrow 

endemic species by the City of San 

Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP 

(McEachern et al. 2007, Appendix A). 

The plan defines narrow endemic 

species as those with ‘‘very limited 

geographic range’’ and states that 

protections for narrow endemics will 

‘‘require additional conservation 

measures to assure their long-term 

survival’’ beyond those afforded to 

covered species not recognized as 

narrow endemics (City of San Diego 

1997, p. 100). Identification of a species 

as a narrow endemic is based on 

distribution, not on listing status; 

therefore, we do not expect the removal 

of M. stoneana from the listed entity to 

affect the protections afforded to it by 

the MSCP as a narrow endemic. 

With regard to the peer reviewer’s 

question about protections on lands set 

aside for Monardella linoides ssp. 

viminea, 100 percent of habitat 

currently occupied by M. stoneana 

within lands covered by the City of San 

Diego Subarea Plan is within the MHPA 

(Multi-Habitat Planning Area), and all 6 

ac (2 ha) on land covered by the County 

of San Diego MSCP subarea plan is 

within the PAMA. All areas identified 

for conservation in the MHPA and 

PAMA were determined based on a 

combination of factors, including 

conservation of covered species. No 

lands were identified and specifically 

set aside for one particular species, 

including Monardella linoides ssp. 

viminea. Lands on which the species 

occurs today will remain unavailable for 

future development regardless of the 

listing status of any species that occurs 

within their boundaries. Furthermore, 

M. stoneana habitat within the County 

of San Diego will also be conserved as 

part of the Otay Ranch Preserve. 

Therefore, we do not anticipate that M. 

stoneana or the lands on which it 

occurs will lose any protection as a 

result of the split of the species. 

(12) Comment: The peer reviewer 

found the June 9, 2011, proposed rule’s 

statement ‘‘a species like Monardella 

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’’ to be too general and 

recommended deleting it. Additionally, 

the peer reviewer found that the 

statement ‘‘though small population size 

may pose a threat to M. stoneana, it is 

alone not enough to cause the extinction 

of the species within the foreseeable 

future’’ seemed primarily directed at the 

Act’s criterion for listing as endangered, 

and that we may wish to re-evaluate the 

threat of small population size in terms 

of threatened status, as defined in the 

Act. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s critical review, and we have 

made the suggested changes and reevaluation. 

Comments About Critical Habitat 

(13) Comment: The peer reviewer 

recommended designating areas 

upstream of Monardella viminea 

occurrences in order to preserve natural 

hydrological regimes. 

Our Response: We agree that natural 

hydrological regimes are important to 

the conservation of Monardella viminea. 

We made the decision not to designate 

upstream areas because there are no 

data to suggest that a quantifiable 

measure of land upstream would be 

necessary to preserve the natural 

hydrological regime specific to the 

needs of M. viminea. No data exist to 

accurately measure what impacts 

upstream would begin to affect this 

species downstream, nor do we know at 

what distance from the occurrences of 

essential habitat these activities begin to 

impact survival and recovery. We 

believe the areas we have designated as 

critical habitat in this final rule are 

sufficient for the conservation of M. 

viminea. 

Critical habitat creates a Federal 

nexus; thus, under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act, agencies must ensure that any 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of its critical 

habitat. As factors supporting a natural 

hydrological regime are included in the 

physical or biological factors necessary 

for the conservation of the species, 

agencies must consult on any action that 

could impact or adversely modify 

critical habitat. The critical habitat 

boundaries we are finalizing in this rule 

are based upon the best available 

scientific information. 

(14) Comment: The peer reviewer and 

two public commenters acknowledged 

the benefits that MCAS Miramar has 

provided to Monardella viminea. 

However, they also pointed out that, 

despite those protections, M. viminea 

occurrences on MCAS Miramar have 

still declined. All three comment letters 

suggested that designation of critical 

habitat on the base could result in 

improved management for M. viminea, 

and that the INRMP is inadequate to 

protect the species. The peer reviewer 

further requested a legal analysis of the 

possibility of designating critical habitat 

on the base, and whether such 

designation could indeed result in 

increased management. 

Our Response: 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 states: ‘‘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 [INRMP] 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’’ (see 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

section above for further discussion). 

We determined the INRMP for MCAS 

Miramar (Gene Stout and Associates et 

al. 2011) provides a benefit to 

Monardella viminea; therefore, the Act 

mandates we exempt this military base 

from critical habitat designation (see 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

section above for further discussion). 

As to the commenters’ question as to 

whether designation of critical habitat 

on the base would improve 

management, we note that critical 

habitat does not create a requirement for 

management or monitoring. The 

primary benefit of a critical habitat 

designation is that it creates a Federal 

nexus through which Federal agencies 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. A Federal nexus 

already exists on military-owned lands, 

and the military consults with us on all 

actions that could impact listed species. 

Therefore, critical habitat designation 

on military-owned lands would not 

improve management of Monardella 

viminea. 

Comments From Federal Agencies 

(15) Comment: A representative from 

MCAS Miramar stated that the proposed 

revised critical habitat and taxonomic 

change is a well-written overview both 

of the known information acquired for 

Monardella viminea and of the critical 

habitat regulatory requirement. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13434 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s feedback. 

(16) Comment: The commenter 

requested more information on the 

geographical location of extirpated 

occurrences in Sycamore Canyon, San 

Clemente Canyon, and ‘‘Miramar NAS.’’ 

The commenter stated that MCAS 

Miramar currently has occurrences 

within all the canyon drainages except 

Murphy Canyon, and asked us to clarify 

if the extirpated occurrences in the 

proposed rule’s Table 1 were inside or 

outside the border of MCAS Miramar. 

Our Response: Regarding the 

occurrence named ‘‘Miramar NAS’’ in 

the CNDDB, the presence of plants there 

was never confirmed, as discussed in 

the New Information on Occurrences of 

Monardella viminea and Monardella 

stoneana section above. The CNDDB 

gives its location as ‘‘Miramar Naval Air 

Station, west of bend in I–15, 0.3 km 

northwest of Benchmark 462’’ (CNDDB 

2011a, EO 31). As recent surveys have 

not found any plants in that location, 

we consider the occurrence to be 

extirpated. As for the occurrences in 

San Clemente Canyon, all extirpated 

occurrences are west of the boundary of 

MCAS Miramar. Regarding the 

commenter’s assertion that the proposed 

rule’s Table 1 listed an occurrence in 

Sycamore Canyon as extirpated, there is 

no such occurrence listed in the table. 

All occurrences in Sycamore Canyon are 

currently extant. 

(17) Comment: The commenter was 

concerned that we had placed too much 

emphasis on the role of coastal sage 

scrub for Monardella viminea habitat, 

when many different habitat types 

support the species. The commenter 

further noted that hydrology and soil 

texture appear to be the most important 

constituent elements for the species, 

and that so much focus on habitat could 

be misleading. 

Our Response: We agree that 

Monardella viminea is not limited to 

coastal sage scrub habitats, and that it 

can prosper in a wide variety of 

habitats. In our Criteria Used To Identify 

Critical Habitat section above, we noted 

that mapped polygons of coastal sage 

scrub were relatively large and did not 

correspond well with the drainage areas 

where M. viminea and its PCE were 

likely to occur. We believe this indicates 

that coastal sage scrub habitat is a poor 

predictor for areas that contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of M. viminea. 

However, despite the fact that coastal 

sage scrub may be a poor predictor for 

where Monardella viminea occurs, our 

vegetation mapping showed that 45 

percent of M. viminea habitat occurs 

within coastal sage scrub (SANDAG 

1995). The second most common habitat 

type, chaparral, makes up only 14 

percent of M. viminea habitat, with 

southern mixed chaparral and nonvegetated channel at 12 percent. 

Therefore, we judged that, for the 

purposes of the five-factor analysis, 

coastal sage scrub was the best 

representative of habitats supporting M. 

viminea. 

We agree with the commenter that a 

natural hydrological regime is crucial to 

the survival and recovery of the species. 

We identify a natural hydrological 

regime as one of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Monardella viminea, 

and an altered hydrological regime as a 

threat to M. viminea (see the Summary 

of Factor A section for M. viminea 

above). Therefore, we do not believe 

that we have put undue emphasis on 

coastal sage scrub as habitat for M. 

viminea. 

(18) Comment: The commenter 

requested clarification of the statement 

in the proposed rule that ‘‘two 

occurrences at MCAS Miramar have 

been partially destroyed by road 

construction since the time of listing.’’ 

The commenter stated that no impacts 

to Monardella viminea from road 

construction have occurred on MCAS 

Miramar. 

Our Response: Upon further review, 

we agree that the statement was 

incorrect, and we have removed it from 

this final rule. 

(19) Comment: The commenter stated 

that drought has been one of the most 

significant factors impacting Monardella 

viminea occurrences on MCAS 

Miramar, and that drought has resulted 

in the loss of plants in Murphy Canyon, 

poor success of seedlings, and difficulty 

of M. viminea in competing for 

resources. The commenter stated that 

drought should be more heavily 

evaluated as a threat to M. viminea. 

Our Response: We have evaluated the 

best information available on the 

impacts of drought on Monardella 

viminea, which we present in the Factor 

E discussion for M. viminea. The impact 

of drought on riparian vegetation in 

general is well documented, including 

increased invasion of more droughttolerant nonnative species, decreased 

health of native riparian vegetation, and 

decreased seedling survival (McBride 

and Strahan 1984, p. 243; Stromberg 

2001, p. 18; Gitlin et al. 2006, p. 1479). 

However, we were unable to find 

additional specific information relating 

to the potential effects of drought 

specific to M. viminea apart from what 

we presented in the proposed rule. 

Further, as we discuss in the Factor E 

analysis for M. viminea, although we 

expect that climate change may cause an 

increased frequency of drought, we do 

not have enough information to 

accurately forecast its effects. 

We appreciate the information 

submitted by the commenter, and invite 

anyone with detailed information on the 

impact of drought on Monardella 

viminea to submit it to our Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

(20) Comment: The commenter 

suggested analyzing the Clean Water Act 

in Factor D to assess any protections it 

may provide to Monardella viminea and 

M. stoneana. 

Our Response: We have added an 

assessment of the protections afforded 

by the Clean Water Act to the Factor D 

analyses for both species. 

(21) Comment: The commenter noted 

that, in the proposed rule, we had 

highlighted ‘‘frequent’’ fire as occurring 

on MCAS Miramar in the Summary of 

Factor D for Monardella viminea. The 

commenter disagreed that fires have 

occurred frequently within M. viminea 

habitat within the boundaries of MCAS 

Miramar and requested that we remove 

that wording. 

Our Response: The phrase that the 

commenter refers to was not meant to 

imply that uncontrolled fire was 

common on MCAS Miramar. Rather, we 

were attempting to make a distinction 

between habitat-based changes due to 

fire and threats to individual plants. In 

order to avoid confusion, we have 

revised the phrase ‘‘frequent fire’’ to 

‘‘increased fire frequency from historical 

conditions.’’ 

(22) Comment: The commenter 

pointed out that the updated INRMP 

will be available from 2011 to 2015, not 

2014 as stated, and that it is awaiting 

agency letters to complete the process, 

not publication processes. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s critical review. Since the 

publication of the proposed rule and the 

closing of the first comment period, the 

new INRMP was signed. We have 

updated this final rule with information 

from the new INRMP. 

(23) Comment: The commenter 

reported that MCAS Miramar would 

soon complete a 3-year study addressing 

habitat factors that promote the survival 

of seedling and juvenile Monardella 

viminea, and stated that they would 

send this study to us when it is 

completed. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

additional information. Our office 

received the study during the second 

open comment period. We have updated 

this rule with the information submitted 

in the new report (see the Summary of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13435 

Changes from Proposed Rule section 

above). 

(24) Comment: The commenter found 

our criteria for drawing critical habitat 

boundaries was ‘‘the most accurate 

delineation identification method 

offered to date.’’ However, the 

commenter also worried that the strict 

delineation of 490 ft (150 m) may miss 

some essential habitat and include nonessential habitat elsewhere, that it may 

include too much upland habitat in 

narrower canyons, and that it ‘‘leaves 

out drainages without trees.’’ The 

commenter recommends that we 

examine each drainage individually, 

and worries that otherwise landowners 

may regard the 490 ft (150 m) as a 

‘‘magic habitat area tool.’’ 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s feedback. In reference to 

the commenter’s assertion that critical 

habitat ‘‘leaves our drainages without 

trees,’’ we believe the commenter may 

have misunderstood our methodology. 

In drawing our critical habitat 

boundaries, we applied the 490-ft (150- 

m) guideline to all watersheds, even 

those that contained no southern 

sycamore-alder riparian woodland. 

Southern sycamore-alder riparian 

woodland, and riparian woodland in 

general, are very rare in canyons 

containing Monardella viminea. 

However, as described in the Criteria 

Used to Identify Critical Habitat section 

above, we found that where southern 

sycamore-alder riparian woodland cooccurred with Monardella viminea, the 

two occupied nearly identical portions 

of the canyons. This was the case even 

though, as mentioned above, the habitat 

type is quite rare in canyons containing 

Monardella viminea. Therefore, this 

habitat width appeared to be an accurate 

predictor for areas containing the 

physical or biological features necessary 

for the conservation of M. viminea. 

In regard to drainage width, although 

we agree with the commenter that 

individually based drainage assessments 

have the potential to very accurately 

capture the PCE for Monardella 

viminea, the literature on the species 

does not present any information on 

topography necessary for the 

conservation of the species. We lack the 

GIS data on which to base individual 

evaluation at each site. We are unable to 

visit every site ourselves for individual 

evaluation, particularly as some areas 

contain private land that we do not have 

permission to access (for example, 

Spring Canyon). Further, critical habitat 

lines must be unambiguous and the 

methods clearly defined for later 

evaluation of project effects and 

consultations, and we believe this 

habitat delineation method provides a 

clear guide to measure impacts to 

habitat supporting M. viminea. 

As to the commenter’s question 

regarding upslope habitat, we note that 

although the basis for critical habitat 

was vegetation, we wanted to include 

habitat for all necessary physical or 

biological features, including habitat 

that supports pollinators. Although we 

lack data to provide a quantifiable 

estimate of how much habitat is needed 

by the diverse species suspected to 

pollinate Monardella viminea, we 

believe that including the projected 

stream width will support pollinators 

necessary for M. viminea. 

As to the commenter’s concern that 

this number might become a ‘‘magic 

habitat area tool,’’ we do not believe that 

this will be the case. We believe this 

rule contains adequate explanation and 

documentation of our methodology so 

that land managers will understand how 

we reached our habitat delineation 

methods. 

Therefore, we believe that our critical 

habitat lines are based on the best 

available scientific information, provide 

a clear and understandable boundary for 

projects, and provide for the 

conservation of Monardella viminea. 

(25) Comment: The commenter was 

concerned about listing fire retardant or 

herbicide application as an activity that 

could require section 7 consultation. 

The commenter has found no negative 

effects on Monardella viminea following 

fire retardant use. Additionally, spot 

herbicide application is frequently used 

for weed control on M. viminea with 

great success. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s insights. Indeed, we 

submit documents for public comment 

in large part to solicit such pertinent 

information as provided by the 

commenter. The section of text to which 

the commenter refers was meant to 

relate to widespread general herbicide 

use upstream of Monardella viminea 

occurrences. However, we acknowledge 

that the language could be confusing, 

and have revised this rule to clarify this 

issue. We have also highlighted the use 

of spot application of herbicides within 

the Special Management Considerations 

or Protection section. 

Comments From Local Agencies 

(26) Comment: The City of San Diego 

requested an exclusion from critical 

habitat. They stated that their annual 

monitoring reports demonstrate that the 

MSCP is functioning properly and that 

it provides appropriate protection for 

Monardella viminea. They also stated 

that the City would continue to 

implement the MSCP by acquiring 

habitat and ensuring that all projects 

conform to MSCP requirements. 

Our Response: We value our 

partnership with the City of San Diego 

and appreciate their efforts to protect 

Monardella viminea. With regard to the 

commenter’s assertion that lands owned 

or under the jurisdiction of the City of 

San Diego Subarea Plan under the 

MSCP should be excluded because the 

HCP provides adequate protection for 

the species, the adequacy of an HCP to 

protect a species and its essential 

habitat is one consideration taken into 

account in our evaluation under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. Exclusion of an area 

from critical habitat is based on our 

determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of an area 

will not result in extinction of a species, 

which is a more complex analysis 

process. We have examined the 

protections afforded to M. viminea by 

the City of San Diego Subarea Plan 

under the MSCP during our exclusion 

analysis in this critical habitat 

designation, and have determined that 

the benefits of excluding areas owned 

by or under the jurisdiction of the City 

of San Diego Subarea Plan under the 

MSCP outweigh the benefits of 

including these areas, including 

fostering our ongoing conservation 

partnership with the City of San Diego. 

(27) Comment: The County of San 

Diego requested an exclusion from 

critical habitat, given that the Sycamore 

Canyon Preserve adequately supports 

and manages Monardella viminea in 

accordance with the MSCP, and that the 

lands will be designated in perpetuity. 

Our Response: We value our 

partnership with the County of San 

Diego and appreciate their efforts to 

protect Monardella viminea. With 

regard to the commenter’s assertion that 

lands owned or under the jurisdiction of 

the County of San Diego under the 

MSCP should be excluded because the 

HCP provides adequate protection for 

the species, the adequacy of an HCP to 

protect a species and its essential 

habitat is one consideration taken into 

account in our evaluation under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. Exclusion of an area 

from critical habitat is based on our 

determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of an area 

will not result in extinction of a species, 

which is a more complex analysis 

process. We have examined the 

protections afforded to M. viminea by 

the County of San Diego Subarea Plan 

under the MSCP during our exclusion 

analysis in this critical habitat 

designation, and have determined that 

the benefits of excluding areas owned 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13436 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

by or under the jurisdiction of the 

County of San Diego under the MSCP 

outweigh the benefits of including these 

areas, including fostering our 

continuing conservation partnership 

with the County of San Diego. 

(28) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the proposed rule’s Figure 1, which 

shows the geographic location of 

Monardella viminea and M. stoneana, 

was not included in the proposed rule. 

The commenter requested that the figure 

be included in the final rule. 

Our Response: Figure 1 was published 

on page 33885 of the proposed rule (76 

FR 33880, June 9, 2011). It is included 

in this final rule as well. However, we 

have altered the figure for clarity and 

ease of distinguishing the range of the 

two species. 

(29) Comment: The SDCWA 

expressed concern that the designation 

of critical habitat might interfere with 

maintenance of existing facilities and 

construction of new facilities that 

enable the delivery of water to San 

Diego County. SDCWA requested that 

‘‘provisions should be made in the 

designation to address existing activities 

and operations of the Water Authority to 

fulfill the mission to provide a safe and 

reliable water source.’’ Specifically, the 

commenter requested exclusions or 

textual exemptions to address existing 

activities and operations of the SDCWA. 

Our Response: Sections 4(b)(2) and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.12) govern exclusions under the 

Act. The Secretary may exclude an 

area—not activities—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 (see Exclusions section 

above). We do not exclude or exempt 

specific activities from critical habitat 

designation. Furthermore, SDCWA has 

prepared a Subregional Natural 

Community Conservation Plan/Habitat 

Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP; Plan) in 

support of an application for an 

incidental take permit pursuant to 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We 

completed an intra-Service formal 

section 7 consultation for issuance of a 

section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take 

permit under the Act for the Plan. In our 

‘‘Conference Opinion’’ for the section 

10(a)(1)(B) permit, we determined that 

the activities proposed by the SDCWA 

in their NCCP/HCP will not result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat for Monardella 

viminea (Service 2011, pp. 284–286). 

The NCCP/HCP was signed on 

December 20, 2011. Therefore, the 

designation should not impede the 

existing activities, operations, or the 

ability of the SDCWA to fulfill the 

mission to provide a safe and reliable 

water source. 

Public Comments 

During the first comment period, we 

received two public comments 

submitted by species experts on 

Monardella viminea and M. stoneana. 

Overall, both commenters 

recommended endangered status and 

designation of critical habitat for M. 

stoneana. Both commenters also 

supported the recognition by the Service 

of the taxonomic split of M. linoides ssp. 

viminea. We have organized the 

comments into four sections: those 

regarding the taxonomic split, those 

regarding M. viminea, those regarding 

M. stoneana, and those pertaining to the 

critical habitat designation for M. 

viminea. 

Comments Regarding the Taxonomic 

Split of Monardella linoides ssp. 

viminea 

(30) Comment: Two commenters 

referenced previous listing rules and 

candidate assessments where previously 

listed entities were split: the spotted 

frog (Rana pretiosa), the flatwoods 

salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), 

and the Uinta Basin hookless cactus 

(Sclerocactus glaucus). In each case, all 

species were given the same status as 

the original listed entity as threatened, 

were uplisted to endangered status, or 

both recognized as candidate species. 

One commenter argued that, based on 

these precedents, the Service did not 

appear to be consistent in its treatment 

of split taxon. 

Our Response: We respectfully 

disagree that a decision not to list 

Monardella stoneana is inconsistent 

with previous rules. In our evaluation of 

the stressors impacting M. viminea and 

M. stoneana, we conducted a thorough 

review of all available scientific and 

commercial data. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act requires us to make listing 

decisions for each species based solely 

on the best scientific and commercial 

data available, and not on previous 

actions taken by the Service. We believe 

our consistency comes from constantly 

upholding this standard as our method 

for determining listing status. 

In the case of Monardella viminea, we 

determined that listing as endangered 

was warranted, because we found that 

threats were likely to cause the species 

to become extinct in the foreseeable 

future. In contrast, we did not find that 

M. stoneana is currently endangered, 

and we did not find that it is likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable 

future. Please see our Summary of 

Factors sections above for further details 

on the potential threats impacting each 

species, and Comment 37 below for a 

further analysis of our treatment of 

potential threats impacting each species. 

Comments Regarding Monardella 

viminea 

(31) Comment: One commenter 

disagreed with our assessment that 

climate change is not threatening 

Monardella viminea or M. stoneana. 

The commenter stated that although the 

current reason for the decline of the two 

species is unknown, impacts associated 

with climate change would cause a 

future increase of altered hydrology and 

increasing fire risk. The commenter then 

requested an explanation of declining 

occurrences in drainages without 

development (for example, MCAS 

Miramar) if climate change is not 

occurring. 

Our Response: While we recognize 

that climate change is an important 

issue with potential effects to listed 

species and their habitats, we lack 

adequate information to make accurate 

projections regarding its effects to 

Monardella viminea or M. stoneana at 

this time. 

We acknowledge that the decline of 

Monardella viminea in undeveloped 

drainages is not well understood. 

However, as we stated in the 

Cumulative Impacts section above, 

based on our review of the best available 

scientific information, we believe that in 

the case of M. viminea there is strong 

evidence that the synergistic effects of 

increased fire frequency, megafire, and 

invasive grasses are causing the decline 

of the species, including on MCAS 

Miramar. We believe that section 

summarizes the best available scientific 

information, and that the threats 

strongly support the continued listing of 

M. viminea as endangered. 

With regard to Monardella stoneana, 

we do not believe that the best available 

scientific information shows a decline 

in species numbers across all or a 

significant portion of the range. Again, 

we do not have adequate information to 

determine the potential future impacts 

of climate change on M. stoneana. 

Further discussion of this issue can be 

found in the Factor E discussion of M. 

stoneana. 

(32) Comment: Two commenters 

provided new information related to 

Monardella viminea. One commenter 

submitted unpublished data from a 

recent survey for M. viminea in Spring 

Canyon and provided information about 

additional threats to the species there, 

including trampling and off-road 

vehicle use. Another commenter 

provided insight on lack of recruitment 

of M. viminea, and stated that seed 

germination has appeared to be good for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13437 

the species, but that seed head 

predation was occurring across the 

range of M. viminea. 

Our Response: We appreciate 

receiving these results. We have 

incorporated the survey reports into our 

database and added the information on 

threats to our five-factor analysis for 

Monardella viminea. 

(33) Comment: One commenter 

believed that a pollination study for 

Monardella viminea had been 

conducted by MCAS Miramar and 

recommended that we request it. 

Our Response: We contacted MCAS 

Miramar to inquire about the existence 

of such a report. A biologist at MCAS 

Miramar reported that, although data 

related to pollinators has been gathered 

throughout the years, no such study has 

been completed (Kassebaum 2011a, 

pers. comm.). 

(34) Comment: One commenter 

requested a discussion of lack of 

seedling recruitment, as very few 

seedlings are seen in the species’ range 

and the reasons behind low seedling 

establishment are not well understood. 

The commenter requested that we 

evaluate this as a threat, stating that, 

‘‘The ability to reproduce in an 

ephemeral drainage subject to rapid 

water flow seems to be a critical factor 

given that this species occurs in braided 

channels.’’ 

Our Response: We agree that a strong 

understanding of factors influencing 

seedling establishment could be a 

crucial factor in the recovery of 

Monardella viminea and the continued 

persistence of M. stoneana. Based on 

information in the report submitted by 

MCAS Miramar during the second open 

comment period, we added details 

about seedling recruitment to the fivefactor analysis. However, upon review 

of the report, we concluded that there 

was not enough information on seedling 

recruitment to discuss it as distinct from 

other effects, although we discussed the 

influence that other factors (such as 

nonnative grasses) could have on M. 

viminea or M. stoneana. 

We further acknowledge that 

seedlings are very rare in Monardella 

viminea. As discussed in the Summary 

of Changes from Proposed Rule section 

above, we received a study on seedling 

establishment from MCAS Miramar 

during the second open comment period 

and have added information from that 

report to this final rule. 

(35) Comment: One commenter noted 

that lack of recruitment in drainages 

may be due to nonnative plants taking 

up suitable habitat where seedlings 

might otherwise grow. The commenter 

further recommends managing 

nonnative species on a habitat-wide 

basis, rather than managing for 

individual plants. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenter’s assertion, and have 

updated the Special Management 

Considerations and Protection section of 

this rule to reflect this idea. 

Comments Regarding Monardella 

stoneana 

(36) Comment: Two commenters 

noted that it seems illogical to delist a 

portion of the original listed entity 

when Monardella linoides ssp. viminea 

was originally listed in part due to small 

population size, and when the 2008 

5-Year Review stated that, ‘‘In 

particular, small population size makes 

it difficult for this subspecies to persist 

while sustaining the impacts of fire, 

flooding, and competition with invasive 

plants. Because M. linoides subsp. 

viminea is found in small and declining 

populations, immediate action to 

conserve the subspecies may be 

inadequate as the extinction threshold 

(vortex) for the subspecies may already 

have been reached.’’ 

One commenter further noted that 

plants with both more occurrences and 

more individual plants are protected or 

federally endangered, and that it 

therefore does not make sense that 

Monardella stoneana does not warrant 

such protections. 

Our Response: As discussed in the 

Factor E analyses for both species, rarity 

is not in itself a threat, although we 

acknowledge that small population size 

can exacerbate other potential threats to 

a species. Further, as discussed in the 

Determination section for Monardella 

stoneana, the best available scientific 

information does not allow us to 

conclude that fire, flooding, or invasive 

plants are impacting M. stoneana and its 

habitat to the extent that the species is 

endangered now, or likely to become so 

in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the 

factors mentioned by the commenter 

that were believed at the time of the 

5-year review to be exacerbating the 

small population size of M. linoides ssp. 

viminea are not present in the range of 

what is now M. stoneana. Further, in 

regard to the quoted text about the 

‘‘extinction vortex,’’ new information 

reviewed since the publication of that 

document has shown that this effect 

may not be applicable to M. stoneana. 

Specifically, although information exists 

on the possible effect of a declining 

spiral in population size on animals, no 

such empirical evidence exists for plant 

species (Matthies et al. 2004, p. 482). 

With regard to the issue of other listed 

species that have more occurrences and 

more individuals than Monardella 

stoneana, as we discussed in comment 

30 above, we make decisions on listing 

status based solely on the best scientific 

and commercial information available at 

the time. This listing is based on threats 

applicable to an individual species, and 

not made in comparison to other listed 

species. Therefore, the population size 

of other listed species is not relevant to 

the consideration of listing status for M. 

viminea or M. stoneana. 

(37) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the analysis of threats for 

Monardella viminea and M. stoneana 

was not consistent. For example, the 

commenter stated that altered hydrology 

also exists in the habitat for M. 

stoneana, caused by border security, 

road construction, higher local rainfall 

upslope, and excessive runoff following 

burns. The commenter pointed out that, 

as M. stoneana occurs in connected 

drainages, a strong rain event in one 

watershed could impact many 

occurrences downstream. Additionally, 

the commenter stated that nonnative 

plants are an equally strong threat to M. 

stoneana, especially due to type 

conversion after frequent fire (Factor A). 

The commenter also added that they 

believe that trampling is not a threat to 

the species. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s insights and the 

information on the effects of trampling 

on Monardella stoneana. However, we 

respectfully disagree with the 

commenter that we were inconsistent in 

our treatment of threats for the two 

species. We used the best available 

scientific information, including 

published peer-reviewed papers, survey 

reports, GIS data, and correspondence 

with species experts and land managers, 

to study the differences in the habitat 

and conditions of the two species. From 

that review, we found differing habitat 

conditions, regulatory mechanisms, 

urbanization, and fire history that 

impact the two species, all of which we 

used to analyze the way that threats 

impact the two species. 

In reference to our different 

determinations for altered hydrological 

regimes for the two species, we again 

highlight the different surrounding 

conditions for Monardella viminea and 

M. stoneana. Several M. viminea 

occurrences are found in areas that have 

been heavily urbanized for many years. 

Monardella stoneana is found almost 

entirely in wilderness areas or other 

public lands protected from 

development. We acknowledge that at 

the time the proposed rule was 

published we did not have any 

information on impacts to hydrology 

from activities due to Border Patrol and 

road construction. Based on the 

information submitted by the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13438 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

commenters, we have added an analysis 

of impacts to hydrology as pertaining to 

M. stoneana. However, as discussed in 

the summary for Factor A, we do not 

believe that impacts to hydrology 

stemming from occasional road 

construction and maintenance impact 

M. stoneana’s habitat to the extent that 

it currently endangers the species or 

could cause the plant to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future. While road construction within 

the area of M. stoneana may have some 

temporary impacts on seasonal 

streamflows, we have no information 

that suggests that these flows are 

substantial enough to wash away the 

rocky terraces that support M. stoneana. 

Further, the altered hydrology in M. 

stoneana habitat is nowhere near the 

extent of streamflow changes that have 

resulted from permanent development 

and increased pavement cover that has 

occurred in canyons surrounding M. 

viminea. While the connected nature of 

the canyons does indeed mean that 

streamflow in one canyon could impact 

occurrences found downstream, we do 

not find that the hydrology of the 

canyons has been altered to the point 

that such a flow event is likely to occur. 

With regard to nonnative plants 

impacting Monardella stoneana, 

although we acknowledge that an 

invasion of nonnative plants could have 

a detrimental influence on M. stoneana 

and its habitat, we have been unable to 

find evidence that such an invasion 

exists, or will exist in the foreseeable 

future. Further, as discussed in the 

Factor A analysis, the chaparral 

vegetation that M. stoneana favors is 

less vulnerable to type conversion 

following frequent fire than the 

vegetation types that support M. 

viminea. Additionally, as discussed in 

the same section, those occurrences of 

M. stoneana that are currently 

monitored contain lower cover of 

nonnative vegetation than do 

occurrences of M. viminea. 

(38) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that CAL FIRE has, in the past, 

been unable to mitigate the impacts of 

large fire on Monardella viminea, 

especially the decline of plants after the 

2003 Cedar Fire. Another commenter 

asked how type conversion of lands has 

been addressed by current protections. 

Another stated that CAL FIRE devotes 

all its resources to protecting homes, not 

plants, and that CAL FIRE is unlikely in 

the future to alter the dynamics of fire 

on Otay Mountain during Santa Ana 

conditions. 

Our Response: As discussed earlier in 

this rule, on land owned and managed 

by CDFG and BLM, which contain 

approximately 88 percent of all 

occurrences of Monardella stoneana, 

fire management is provided not only by 

CAL FIRE, but further protection of 

natural resources on Federal and State 

lands is provided by management 

conducted consistent with the 

Wilderness Act. Furthermore, the first 

step to preventing damage to homes and 

natural resources is suppression. It is 

not clear whether more could be done 

to protect natural resources once a 

wildfire becomes large, and the focus 

must be on human health and safety 

once the ability to control a wildfire is 

limited. 

Fire management activities occur on 

Otay Mountain (34 percent of all 

occurrences of Monardella stoneana) as 

part of the BLM’s current (1994) 

SCRMP. Information provided by BLM 

summarizes these ongoing management 

actions: BLM Fire Management provides 

an initial attack dispatch and agency 

representative to ensure appropriate 

actions are taken on a fire incident; fire 

prevention and law enforcement patrols 

occur on Otay Mountain; and, on large 

incidents, several resource specialists 

may form a team to evaluate fire and fire 

suppression effects (Howe 2010, pers. 

comm.). If a determination is made to 

pursue fire restoration and repair, these 

specialists work with Burned Area 

Emergency Response (BAER) Teams to 

implement appropriate actions. 

BLM is further collaborating with the 

Service to revise the SCRMP, which 

covers the Otay Mountain Wilderness. 

In the current draft revised plan, 

Monardella stoneana is identified as a 

federally listed species and is given 

conservation priority (BLM 2009, pp. 3– 

23, 3–54, 4–175). As of this final rule, 

M. stoneana will no longer be 

considered an endangered species. 

However, the draft SCRMP also 

provides protection for BLM-identified 

sensitive species, which includes M. 

stoneana (BLM 2009, p. 3–50; BLM 

2010, pp. 29–30). All special status 

species are considered as a group for 

conservation measures (BLM 2010, p. 

50), and thus the change in the listing 

status of M. stoneana status would not 

affect the protections afforded by the 

draft SCRMP. Moreover, one of BLM’s 

primary objectives in the draft revised 

plan is improved fire management and 

collaboration with local communities 

and agencies to prevent wildfires. The 

draft revised plan specifically includes 

a goal of restoring fire frequency to 50 

years through fire prevention or 

suppression and prescribed burns. 

When 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 2009, pp. 4–171—4–172). Actions 

implemented under the revised plan, 

when final, will be designed to promote 

conservation of M. stoneana and its 

habitat. 

Furthermore, it is worth noting that 

CAL FIRE only has jurisdiction over 2 

percent of lands containing Monardella 

viminea. The remainder of the area is 

managed by MCAS Miramar’s fire 

division or by local fire agencies. 

Therefore, fire history impacting M. 

viminea does not provide a good 

comparison for how M. stoneana will be 

managed by CAL FIRE in the future. 

(39) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that the current status of 

Monardella stoneana is not known, as 

only the City of San Diego has surveyed 

for the species on its smaller piece of 

the range (two plants) and that, despite 

the existence of an HCP for these lands, 

BLM, CDFG, and the Service have not 

monitored or managed their 

populations. The commenter stated that 

‘‘the decline of the species from historic 

levels and the current lack of 

monitoring and management neglect 

argue for designating this range as 

Critical Habitat. This designation is 

needed to raise the status of these lands 

and to provide leverage for actual 

management.’’ One commenter further 

asked how type conversion of lands 

with repeated fire has been addressed 

for habitat essential to M. stoneana. 

Our Response: We acknowledge 

throughout this final rule that 

monitoring data are lacking for most 

occurrences of Monardella stoneana. 

However, under section 4(b) of the Act, 

we are required to make determinations 

based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information. We invite 

any individual or agency with recent 

monitoring reports on occurrences of M. 

stoneana to submit them to our Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above). 

Furthermore, as we have determined 

that listing Monardella stoneana under 

the Act as endangered or threatened is 

not warranted, critical habitat cannot be 

designated, and a discussion of the 

potential impact that a hypothetical 

critical habitat designation would have 

on BLM or CDFG-owned lands is, 

therefore, not relevant. We also note that 

the City of San Diego in fact monitors 

two occurrences of M. stoneana. The 

first occurrence, Buschalaugh Cove (EO 

4) contains one individual plant (City of 

San Diego 2011a, p. 229). The second 

occurrence, in Marron Valley, comprises 

approximately 95 plants (City of San 

Diego 2010a, p. 238). No M. stoneana 

occurs on lands owned or managed by 

the Service. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13439 

(40) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that, despite Monardella 

stoneana’s protected status as a part of 

the original listed entity, in recent years 

Border Patrol and other activities on 

BLM land trump any State, County, or 

Federal environmental regulations. The 

commenter stated that because of this 

situation, the City of San Diego MSCP 

is unable to adequately protect M. 

stoneana. The commenter then 

concluded that the HCP could not be 

considered an adequate regulation if its 

protections were not fully implemented. 

Our Response: On April 3, 2008, the 

Secretary of Homeland Security 

published a determination in the 

Federal Register (73 FR 18294) and 

stated that, due to high amounts of 

illegal immigrant traffic, he was creating 

a waiver to allow the Department of 

Homeland Security to construct barriers 

to stem the high flow of illegal 

immigrant traffic. This waiver permitted 

construction of the border fence without 

need for consultation under the Act 

under the authorization of section 102 

(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform 

and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 

1996 (Pub. L. 104–208). 

Before construction of the fence, the 

Border Patrol prepared an 

environmental stewardship plan (ESP) 

to examine impacts of construction of 

the border fence to listed and rare 

species and sensitive habitats. Prior to 

the start of the project, surveys were 

conducted to determine the presence or 

absence of rare species, including 

Monardella stoneana (Department of 

Homeland Security et al. 2008, p. 8–5). 

No individuals were found during the 

surveys, but as these surveys took place 

in fall when the plant was dormant, 

subsequent surveys were undertaken 

during construction of the fence to 

determine presence or absence of M. 

stoneana (Department of Homeland 

Security et al. 2008, pp. 8–30, 8–34). 

When plants were documented during 

the construction period, best 

management practices were 

implemented to avoid and minimize 

impacts to M. stoneana (e2M 2008, p. 1; 

e2M 2009, p. 1). 

Therefore, despite the waiver that 

mandated that border fence activities 

could carry on without environmental 

oversight, we have no available 

information suggesting that this project 

threatened the continued existence of 

Monardella stoneana. The San Diego 

MSCP continues to be adequately 

implemented and carried out. 

(41) Comment: Two commenters 

stated that Otay Mountain has 

undergone recent habitat degradation 

due to increased roads and trails, Border 

Patrol activities, road construction 

upstream from Monardella stoneana 

that has altered hydrology, and weeds 

that have invaded upslope of M. 

stoneana. One commenter stated that ‘‘it 

is only a matter of time before weeds 

become a more serious issue on Otay 

Mountain. Road repair work has to be 

conducted on a more regular basis. 

Those factors could easily result in 

changes to the speed of water flow 

during peak rainfall periods creating an 

impact to M. stoneana.’’ 

Both commenters reported impacts to 

EO 7 and EO 8 from construction of an 

access road by the Department of 

Homeland Security. The commenters 

further reported that the roads ‘‘were 

not revegetated’’ in 2010, despite the 

fact that the area is a Wilderness Area. 

The commenters reported that in the 

winter after construction, the road and 

fence were washed out and both had to 

be replaced. One commenter added that 

the effects of the construction are not 

well known due to lack of monitoring 

for Monardella stoneana. 

Our Response: The commenters did 

not provide information on the 

hydrology prior to the occurrence, or 

any data on altered terrain, to support 

their statements or to allow us to 

evaluate the extent of altered 

streamflows that might have directly 

impacted Monardella stoneana. While 

we acknowledge that any erosion can 

impact streamflows, we do not believe 

that construction of dirt roads can have 

the same level of impact on natural 

hydrology that occurs in the range of M. 

viminea, where some occurrences are 

surrounded by urbanized areas and high 

density of pavement on all sides, all of 

which result in substantial alterations to 

hydrology. 

Further, while we agree that a 

landscape with increased nonnative 

cover could negatively impact 

Monardella stoneana, the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

does not show that such an increase in 

cover is likely to occur in the future. We 

invite anyone with information on those 

occurrences or any changing cover of 

nonnative plants to submit this 

information to our Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT above). 

(42) Comment: The commenter 

asserted that Monardella stoneana has 

experienced increased fire frequency 

due to nonnative plant invasion, which 

has resulted in weed invasion, habitat 

conversion, increased sheet runoff of 

rainfall, and erosion. The commenter 

further stated that fire was credited with 

having wiped out the occurrence at 

Buschalaugh Cove (CNDDB EO5) and 

caused the location at Otay Lakes to be 

reduced by 87 percent. Another 

commenter agreed, and stated that fire 

frequency could cause increased 

alteration of hydrology due to increased 

runoff from slopes that were 

devegetated by fire. The commenter 

stated that a task force was created with 

local agencies to address the fire 

frequency changes as the numbers of 

fires on the mountain had increased so 

dramatically over historical levels. 

Our Response: We have not found any 

evidence, nor did the commenter 

provide any evidence, that nonnative 

plants are invading occurrences of 

Monardella stoneana to the degree that 

they would pose a threat to the species. 

We are also not aware of any incidences 

of increased streamflow following fire 

events. Although we agree that it is 

possible that such changes could occur, 

in our Determination section for M. 

stoneana above, we did not find that 

these factors were currently threatening, 

or likely to threaten, M. stoneana in the 

future. 

It is worth noting that EO 5 consisted 

of only one plant when it was thought 

to be extirpated by fire. Since the first 

open comment period, as discussed 

above, this plant has now resprouted 

from the root (City of San Diego 2011a, 

p. 229). 

(43) Comment: The commenter 

highlighted the decrease in occurrences 

in a protected area monitored by the 

City of San Diego. The commenter 

stated that since monitoring began in 

accordance with the HCP, EO 6 has 

dropped from 120 plants to 95 plants. 

Our Response: We believe that in this 

case the commenter is suggesting that 

the protections afforded by the MSCP 

are inadequate to conserve the species. 

However, survey data are inconclusive 

due in large part to changing monitoring 

methods. Monardella stoneana often 

grows in clumps of one to four 

individual plants. The number of plants 

within a clump cannot be reliably 

distinguished without exposing the 

roots. In the first 3 years of surveys, 

clumps of M. stoneana were counted, 

rather than individual plants. In 2003, 

113 plants were reported, then 192 in 

2004, and 103 plants in 2010 (City of 

San Diego 2010b, p. 2). Given the 

difficulty of determining individual 

plants from clumps of M. stoneana, we 

believe these counts are due to differing 

methods rather than population 

fluctuations. The City of San Diego 

acknowledged this in their 2006 survey 

report for Marron Valley, saying that ‘‘It 

should be noted that implementation of 

the current monitoring method may 

have been inconsistent from season to 

season. Monitoring of this species is 

being analyzed and methods may be 

revised in order to provide more reliable 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13440 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

data’’ (City of San Diego 2006, p. 67). It 

is worth noting that in all subsequent 

reports the number of plants has held 

steady at 95 clumps (City of San Diego 

2010b, p. 2). Therefore, the best 

available scientific information does not 

allow us to conclude that this 

occurrence has declined in size since 

monitoring began. 

(44) Comment: One commenter asked 

how lighting associated with a fencing 

project constructed by the Border Patrol 

had impacted the insects needed to 

pollinate Monardella stoneana. 

Our Response: Surveys conducted 

prior to the construction of the border 

fence found no known occurrences of 

Monardella stoneana within the impact 

corridor of the project, although known 

occurrences are located in proximity to 

the construction sites (Department of 

Homeland Security et al. 2008, p. 8–30). 

Therefore, we do not believe that 

lighting associated with the 

construction of the border fence would 

have affected pollinators. As for future 

impacts, even though road maintenance 

is ongoing, road construction typically 

does not occur during night hours (Ford 

2011, pers. comm.) 

Critical Habitat for Monardella viminea 

(45) Comment: Two commenters 

believed that Lopez, Carroll, and 

Cemetery Canyons should be designated 

as critical habitat. One commenter 

further stated that ‘‘Circular logic seems 

to being [sic] used to state that those two 

canyons that are supporting plants 

cannot support the species due to 

changed hydrology’’ and that ‘‘we do 

agree that the hydrology of both systems 

has changed but there are still plenty of 

lands within the braided system that 

could support plants if they did not 

support such a large weed load.’’ 

Our Response: We respectfully 

disagree with the commenters’ assertion 

that areas within Carroll and Lopez 

Canyons meet the definition of critical 

habitat. We do agree, however, with the 

commenter’s assertion that Lopez 

Canyon could support more plants if 

there were not such a high density of 

nonnative species. However, as 

described in the Summary of Changes 

from Previously Designated Critical 

Habitat section in the proposed rule (76 

FR 33880), our primary reason for not 

designating those areas was the lack of 

a natural hydrological regime (all 

components of the PCE), and not the 

presence of nonnative species. Thus, the 

best available scientific information 

does not lead us to conclude that these 

two canyons are essential to the 

conservation of Monardella viminea, 

and, due to the lack of physical and 

biological features essential to the 

species, these areas indeed do not meet 

the definition of critical habitat. We 

believe the areas identified as essential 

are sufficient for recovery of the taxon. 

In response to the commenter’s 

assertion that we used ‘‘circular logic’’ 

in our determination of critical habitat, 

we note that section 3(5)(A) of the Act 

defines critical habitat, in part, as those 

areas with physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

‘‘conservation’’ of the species. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

conservation as ‘‘the use of all methods 

and procedures that are necessary to 

bring any endangered or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary.’’ With the 

language in the Act and its supporting 

regulations focusing on conservation 

rather than survival, we are bound to 

identify those areas with the physical or 

biological features necessary to achieve 

species conservation. We also note that 

features needed for conservation are not 

necessarily the same as those needed for 

survival. Therefore, it is not 

contradictory that Monardella viminea 

clumps can occur in areas without the 

physical and biological features 

identified in this rule. 

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 also note 

that, in addition to protections afforded 

by the MSCP, occupied habitat outside 

the final revised critical habitat 

designation will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, and 

the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. 

We also note that under section 

4(a)(3)(A) of the Act and regulations at 

50 CFR 424.12(g), we may revise critical 

habitat designations as appropriate and 

as new data become available. We 

encourage all members of the public to 

submit such information to our Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above). 

(46) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that Cemetery Canyon should 

be designated as critical habitat, as it 

has the attributes that support 

Monardella viminea and was occupied 

at the time of listing. 

Our Response: In identifying areas 

that meet the definition of critical 

habitat, we first identified areas 

currently occupied and occupied at the 

time of listing. We acknowledge that 

Cemetery Canyon was occupied by 

Monardella viminea at the time of 

listing. However, we respectfully 

disagree with the commenter that 

Cemetery Canyon still contains the 

physical and biological features 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species. As discussed in our response to 

comment 45 above, we found that 

Cemetery Canyon lacks a natural 

hydrological regime (all components of 

the PCE), and therefore does not meet 

the definition of critical habitat (see the 

Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat 

section above for more details). 

(47) Comment: Two commenters 

stated that the proposed rule argues that 

INRMPs and HCPs afford equal 

protection to critical habitat, and the 

commenters disagree with that idea. 

Our Response: The City of San Diego 

and County of San Diego Subarea Plans 

under the MSCP provide ongoing 

protection and monitoring for 

Monardella viminea that will benefit the 

long-term conservation of the species. 

These protections extend to private 

lands that otherwise lack a Federal 

nexus under which consultation could 

be triggered. The INRMP for MCAS 

Miramar further provides for 

management and research into the life 

history and threats impacting M. 

viminea. Both plans provide monitoring 

and management of conserved lands 

important to the survival and recovery 

of M. viminea. These conservation 

measures provided by the INRMP and 

the HCPs are typically not addressed 

through a critical habitat designation, 

that is, through application of the 

statutory prohibition on destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Therefore, we find that in this case the 

INRMP and the HCPs provide clear 

benefits to M. viminea. 

(48) Comment: One commenter stated 

that it was difficult to understand 

exclusions for the City of San Diego 

when management is not occurring, 

threats from nonnative plants and 

altered hydrology are increasing, plant 

numbers are declining, and lands in 

Spring Canyon have not yet been 

acquired. Another commenter argued 

that critical habitat designation is 

needed to raise the status of these lands 

and to provide leverage for actual 

management. Both commenters asserted 

that exclusions should not be made for 

the City of San Diego until management 

begins and species numbers are 

increasing, and one commenter added, 

‘‘the species is continuing to decline 

partially due to lack of management and 

that behavior should not be rewarded by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13441 

granting exclusions due to purported 

benefits.’’ The commenters further 

asserted that designation of critical 

habitat within City of San Diego MSCP 

lands would greatly increase protections 

for Monardella viminea, spur more 

active management and protection, and 

prevent development of lands 

containing M. viminea. 

Our Response: We reiterate that 

conservation measures provided by the 

INRMP and the HCPs are separate from 

the prohibition on destruction or 

adverse modification provided by a 

critical habitat designation. Critical 

habitat does not create a requirement for 

management or monitoring. The 

primary benefit of a critical habitat 

designation is that it creates a Federal 

nexus through which Federal agencies 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. In other words, the 

Federal agencies are required to not 

fund, authorize, or carry out actions on 

designated lands that adversely modify 

or destroy critical habitat. 

We also note that exclusions are not 

based on the difference between 

protection measures provided by critical 

habitat designation or HCPs in isolation, 

but on how the redundancy of 

protections provided by an HCP with 

those provided by critical habitat 

designation minimizes the overall 

conservation value of designation, and 

how the remaining benefits of 

designation may be negated by the 

benefits of exclusion (maintaining 

partnerships and fostering future HCPs). 

Conservation benefits provided by 

existing HCPs are not considered a 

benefit of exclusion because they would 

remain in place regardless of critical 

habitat designation; however, they do 

minimize the benefits of inclusion to the 

extent that they are redundant with 

protection measures that would be 

provided by critical habitat designation. 

We assume that the commenters mean 

that designation of critical habitat 

would pressure the City to increase 

management. Again, critical habitat 

does not create a requirement for 

management or monitoring, and there is 

no regulatory mechanism in place that 

would guarantee such measures. 

Further, critical habitat does not create 

a preserve or a refuge. In fact, 

designating critical habitat within the 

City’s HCP could have a detrimental 

effect on our conservation partnerships 

(see Exclusions section above). 

Based on the conservation benefits 

provided by the City of San Diego and 

County of San Diego Subarea Plans 

under the MSCP, we believe the 

additional protection provided to 

Monardella viminea’s essential habitat 

by critical habitat designation would be 

minimal and are outweighed by the 

benefits of excluding the habitat. 

Therefore, we are excluding lands 

within the plan areas of these HCPs 

based on the benefits of maintaining our 

conservation partnerships. 

(49) Comment: One commenter 

disagreed with our statement that 

almost all occurrences in the City of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan have been 

protected in MSCP reserves and are 

annually monitored. The commenter 

cited large populations of Spring 

Canyon that are neither monitored nor 

protected, and lands in Carroll Canyon 

that are not monitored by the City 

(although the commenter acknowledged 

that they are monitored by contractors), 

transplants in Lopez Canyon that are not 

monitored, and Sycamore Canyon lands 

associated with Rancho Encantata that 

are not monitored. 

Our Response: We have updated this 

rule with the information submitted by 

the commenter. 

(50) Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern about lands in Spring 

Canyon being purchased for 

conservation, as outlined in the MSCP. 

The commenter claims that the City of 

San Diego gave up the right to eminent 

domain in creating the MSCP, and 

pointed out that lands designated for 

possible open space acquisition under 

the City’s MSCP retain 25 percent 

development rights. Finally, the 

commenter claimed that previous 

attempts by the City to purchase the 

Spring Canyon parcels have been 

unsuccessful. One commenter noted 

that development would be on the least 

sensitive parts of the acreage, but that 

the development would still impact 

Monardella viminea through altered 

hydrology. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concerns regarding 

adequate protection of Monardella 

viminea under the City of San Diego 

Subarea Plan for the MSCP. In the 

biological opinion issued by the Service, 

we concluded that the City’s Subarea 

Plan provides a benefit to M. viminea 

because the plan provides for 

conservation of all major occurrences 

(Service 1997, p. 83), including all areas 

we have identified in this rule as 

essential habitat as well as other 

occupied areas such as Lopez Canyon. 

Development within M. viminea habitat 

is restricted to a maximum of 20 percent 

of the habitat, and, should development 

occur, in-kind mitigation would be 

required at a 1:1 to 3:1 ratio, in addition 

to the protections for riparian habitat, 

which require no net loss of wetland 

acreage or function (Service 1997, p. 

83). 

Additionally, the commenter 

provided no evidence regarding the 

failure of the City of San Diego to 

acquire the parcel of private lands. We 

invite any individual or agency with 

information regarding conservation of 

Monardella viminea within the MSCP to 

submit it to our Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above). 

(51) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Sycamore Estates occurrence of 

Monardella viminea should be 

designated as critical habitat. 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

development of this project was stopped 

due to the economy and bankruptcy, 

leaving the status of the project 

uncertain. In addition, the commenter 

stated that the status of M. viminea on 

the planned open space was also 

uncertain. Finally, the commenter stated 

that management of the naturally 

occurring plants and transplants were 

put on hold. 

Our Response: See our response to 

comment 48 above. Sycamore Estates 

falls within the boundaries of the City 

of San Diego Subarea Plan under the 

MSCP and, thus, we have decided to 

exclude it under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act (also see Exclusions section above). 

(52) Comment: Two commenters 

reported that they were unaware of any 

management or monitoring actions 

conducted by the County of San Diego, 

whose lands host one population of 14 

plants at the southern end of the 

Sycamore Canyon Preserve 

(corresponding to the southern portion 

of EO 9). Based on their monitoring 

efforts, the commenters reported that 

the occurrence was subject to a high 

density of nonnative species. They 

further reported that this occurrence 

was down to one live plant and a 

number of dead standing Monardella 

viminea in 2007, and that no live plants 

were present in 2008. The commenters 

did not report the date of their most 

recent survey on County lands, but 

stated that they considered this 

occurrence to be extirpated. The 

commenters stressed that existing 

conservation measures on County lands 

were inadequate to protect the species, 

and that designation of lands would 

increase the likelihood of management. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

information submitted by the 

commenters. Despite the decline of 

plants on lands within the boundaries of 

the County of San Diego Subarea Plan, 

we have decided to exclude lands under 

the jurisdiction of the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP. As 

discussed in Exclusions section, we 

found that exclusion of these lands from 

critical habitat will help preserve the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13442 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

partnerships we developed with the 

County and project proponents in the 

development of the MSCP. Conservation 

plans such as the County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan provide landscape-level 

conservation that can better address 

threats to Monardella viminea habitat, 

as opposed to the piecemeal 

conservation approach that could result 

should private landowners complete 

individual section 7 consultations. 

Comparison of regulatory benefits 

provided by critical habitat to 

conservation benefits provided by 

implementation of HCPs is not 

straightforward. However, we point out 

that critical habitat does not create a 

requirement for management or 

monitoring, and that the County of San 

Diego has recently completed a 

management plan for preserve lands 

supporting M. viminea that includes 

removal of nonnative vegetation, habitat 

restoration, and implementation of a 

managed fire regime with a priority of 

protecting biological resources 

including M. viminea (DPR 2009, pp. 

71, 76–77). We believe that the County 

of San Diego Subarea Plan under the 

MSCP provides equivalent or superior 

benefits to M. viminea and its habitat 

than would result from critical habitat 

designation. 

(53) Comment: The commenter listed 

multiple incidences where MCAS 

Miramar had previously turned over 

land to other agencies or private 

landowners, thus losing protected 

habitat for the species and degrading 

drainages and vernal pool habitat for 

other listed species. One parcel 

proposed for sale, the Stowe Trail, 

would connect lands occupied by 

Monardella viminea to the Sycamore 

Canyon Preserve. The commenter 

believes critical habitat should be 

designated in the area to protect it from 

future development. 

Our Response: The most recent 

information we have received from 

MCAS Miramar indicates that the 

station currently has no intent of selling 

or transferring the property (Kassebaum 

2011b, pers. comm.). Therefore, it 

appears that the land will remain under 

the ownership of MCAS Miramar and 

the conservation of the INRMP, and that 

critical habitat designation is not 

appropriate. 

(54) Comment: The commenter noted 

that critical habitat has previously been 

designated for military lands, 

specifically for the critical habitat 

designation for the southwest Alaska 

distinct population segment (DPS) of the 

northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris 

kenyoni), which published October 8, 

2009 (74 FR 51988). 

Our Response: Critical habitat for the 

southwest Alaska DPS of the northern 

sea otter is almost entirely aquatic, 

consisting of nearshore waters to the 

mean high tide line. Therefore, this rule 

did not, in fact, designate critical habitat 

on military lands. Specifically, we state 

in that rule that ‘‘there are no 

Department of Defense lands with a 

complete INRMP within the critical 

habitat designation’’ (p. 52005, 74 FR 

51988, October 8, 2009). Additionally, 

as stated in our response to comment 

30, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires 

us to make determinations for each 

species based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, and not on previous actions 

taken by the Service. We determined the 

INRMP for MCAS Miramar (Gene Stout 

and Associates et al. 2011) provides a 

benefit to Monardella viminea, and, 

therefore, we have determined that 

lands on MCAS Miramar are exempt 

from critical habitat under section 

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

(55) Comment: One commenter 

referenced a proposed development on 

MCAS Miramar of a U.S. Army Reserve 

Center upstream from a drainage with 

Monardella viminea. Although a 

condition was placed on the project that 

it not change the hydrology, the 

commenter had little confidence that 

could be achieved. 

Our Response: Previous projects 

upstream from Monardella viminea 

occurrences have not impacted M. 

viminea individuals or habitat. Surveys 

reported no negative effects after the 

2007 construction of a rifle range in 

close proximity to M. viminea in San 

Clemente Canyon (Tierra Data 2011, p. 

3). As described in the Factor D analysis 

for M. viminea above, the INRMP for 

MCAS Miramar provides conservation 

measures for all riparian areas on the 

base. Therefore, the Service has 

confidence that conservation measures 

will continue to be put in place as 

demonstrated by previous occasions. 

(56) Comment: One commenter stated 

that exemption cannot occur if it will 

result in the extinction of the species. 

The commenter noted the large 

percentage of the population on MCAS 

Miramar, and the recent decline of the 

species on the base, and noted that the 

Act provides a mechanism for dealing 

with emergencies that would require 

expedited consultation ‘‘under 50 CFR 

40205 [sic].’’ 

Our Response: The regulation and the 

language within the Act that the 

commenter refers to is the process of 

determining exclusions from critical 

habitat, not exemptions. The commenter 

is correct in that section 4(b)(2) states 

that exclusions cannot be granted if the 

Secretary of the Interior determines, 

‘‘that the failure to designate such area 

as critical habitat will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned.’’ 

There is no regulation 50 CFR 40205, 

but 50 CFR 402.05 sets forth regulations 

that concern expedited consultation in 

the event of emergency circumstances 

that mandate that need. Further, 50 CFR 

424.19 states that exclusion cannot 

occur if it will result in the extinction 

of a species. 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act 

describes exemptions from critical 

habitat applying to Department of 

Defense land. The Secretary has 

determined that the INRMP for MCAS 

Miramar provides a benefit to this 

species and that the lands it covers are 

therefore exempt from critical habitat 

designation. Sections 4(a)(3)(B)(ii) and 

(iii) also note that agencies granted an 

exemption must still consult under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act, and that the 

Department of Defense must comply 

with section 9, ‘‘including the 

prohibition preventing extinction and 

taking of endangered species and 

threatened species.’’ Thus, although 

military bases can be exempt from 

critical habitat, the Act has mechanisms 

in place to prevent extinction. 

As discussed in our response to 

comment 14 above, the reason for the 

decline of Monardella viminea on 

MCAS Miramar is poorly understood. 

However, despite that lack of 

knowledge, we believe that MCAS 

Miramar is providing conservation 

measures and protections that are 

working to prevent extinction of M. 

viminea. 

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 rule under Executive Order 12866. 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13443 

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 the 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. 

In this final rule, we certify that the 

critical habitat designation for 

Monardella viminea will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses. Small businesses include 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts on these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we consider the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., transportation and construction). 

We apply the ‘‘substantial number’’ test 

individually to each industry to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

However, the SBREFA does not 

explicitly define ‘‘substantial number’’ 

or ‘‘significant economic impact.’’ 

Consequently, to assess whether a 

‘‘substantial number’’ of small entities is 

affected by this designation, this 

analysis considers the relative number 

of small entities likely to be impacted in 

an area. In some circumstances, 

especially with critical habitat 

designations of limited extent, we may 

aggregate across all industries and 

consider whether the total number of 

small entities affected is substantial. In 

estimating the number of small entities 

potentially affected, we also consider 

whether their activities have any 

Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out that may 

affect Monardella viminea. Federal 

agencies also must consult with us if 

their activities may affect critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat, 

therefore, could result in an additional 

economic impact on small entities due 

to the requirement to reinitiate 

consultation for ongoing Federal 

activities (see Application of the 

‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

section). 

In our final economic analysis of the 

critical habitat designation, we 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities resulting from 

conservation actions related to the 

listing of Monardella viminea and the 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis is based on the estimated 

impacts associated with the rulemaking 

as described in Chapters 3 through 5 

and Appendix A of the analysis and 

evaluates the potential for economic 

impacts related to transportation and 

construction. 

The final economic analysis for 

Monardella viminea found that there are 

no businesses operating within critical 

habitat that meet the definition of small 

entities (Industrial Economics Inc. 2012, 

p. A–2). Therefore, the final economic 

analysis found that no small entities 

will be affected by the designation of 

critical habitat for M. viminea. 

In summary, we considered whether 

this designation will result in a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on the above reasoning and 

currently available information, we 

conclude that this rule will not result in 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, we certify that the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Monardella viminea will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.) 

Under SBREFA, this rule is not a 

major rule. Our detailed assessment of 

the economic effects of this designation 

is described in the final economic 

analysis. Based on the effects identified 

in the economic analysis, we believe 

that this rule will not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more, will not cause a major increase 

in costs or prices for consumers, and 

will not have significant adverse effects 

on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

Refer to the final economic analysis for 

a discussion of the effects of this 

determination. 

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. OMB 

has provided guidance for 

implementing this Executive Order that 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

when compared to not taking the 

regulatory action under consideration. 

The economic analysis finds that 

none of these criteria are relevant to this 

analysis and that no modifications to 

future economic activities are 

anticipated to result from the 

designation of critical habitat. Thus, 

based on information in the economic 

analysis, energy-related impacts 

associated with Monardella viminea 

conservation activities within critical 

habitat are not expected. As such, the 

designation of critical habitat is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13444 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, 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 nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year; that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. Further, the lands we are 

designating as critical habitat are owned 

by private individuals, Padre Dam 

Municipal Water District, the California 

Department of Transportation. None of 

these fit the definition of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ Therefore, a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

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. As 

discussed above, the designation of 

critical habitat affects only Federal 

actions. Although private parties that 

receive Federal funding, assistance, or 

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. The 

takings implications assessment 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat for M. viminea does 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 rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

federalism impact summary statement is 

not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of, this 

critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

California. We did not receive any 

comments from any State resource 

agencies during the two open comment 

periods. The designation of critical 

habitat in areas currently occupied by 

Monardella viminea imposes no 

additional restrictions to those currently 

in place and, therefore, has little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments in that the areas that 

contain the physical or 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 local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than having them wait for caseby-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) will 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), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

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

critical habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. This final rule 

uses standard property descriptions and 

identifies the elements of physical or 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13445 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (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 

pursuant to 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)). 

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 determined that there are no tribal 

lands occupied by Monardella viminea 

at the time of listing 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 are not designating critical habitat 

for M. viminea on tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

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 

rulemaking 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. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Monardella linoides ssp. 

viminea’’ under ‘‘FLOWERING 

PLANTS’’ in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants to read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Scientific name Common name 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Monardella viminea Willowy monardella U.S.A. (CA), Mexico Lamiaceae ............... E 649 17.96(a) NA 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In § 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by 

revising the critical habitat entry for 

Monardella linoides ssp. viminea 

(willowy monardella) under Family 

Lamiaceae to read as follows: 

§ 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 

map 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; 

(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: 

(B) Are made up of coarse, rocky, or 

sandy alluvium; and 

(C) 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
13446 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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) Unit 1: Sycamore Canyon, and 

Unit 2, West Sycamore Canyon, San 

Diego County, California. 

(i) Unit 1 for Monardella viminea, 

Sycamore Canyon Unit, San Diego 

County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle San Vicente Reservoir, lands 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E,N): 501600,3640272; 

501581,3640252; 501696,3640253; 

501856,3640274; 501861,3640213; 

502006,3640245; 502010,3640246; 

502330,3640316; 502335,3640312; 

502342,3640307; 502348,3640300; 

502354,3640294; 502359,3640287; 

502363,3640279; 502367,3640271; 

502370,3640263; 502372,3640254; 

502373,3640246; 502374,3640237; 

502374,3640228; 502373,3640220; 

502372,3640211; 502370,3640203; 

502367,3640195; 502363,3640187; 

502359,3640179; 502353,3640172; 

502348,3640165; 502342,3640159; 

502335,3640154; 502328,3640149; 

502320,3640144; 502312,3640141; 

502304,3640138; 502296,3640135; 

502050,3640081; 502046,3640080; 

502030,3640079; 501886,3640076; 

501716,3640054; 501704,3640053; 

501578,3640052; 501517,3640051; 

501460,3640051; 501451,3640051; 

501442,3640052; 501433,3640054; 

501425,3640057; 501417,3640060; 

501409,3640064; 501401,3640069; 

501331,3640008; 501315,3639997; 

501236,3639953; 501222,3639947; 

501215,3639945; 501144,3639925; 

501134,3639922; 501123,3639921; 

500982,3639912; 500957,3639910; 

500973,3639924; 501031,3639974; 

501128,3640057; 501149,3640075; 

501161,3640078; 501162,3640078; 

501242,3640095; 501298,3640107; 

501360,3640120; 501388,3640126; 

501408,3640130; 501410,3640131; 

501407,3640359; 501447,3640402; 

501469,3640439; 501495,3640483; 

501499,3640490; 501504,3640496; 

501509,3640502; 501514,3640507; 

501521,3640512; 501527,3640517; 

501549,3640531; 501556,3640539; 

501603,3640540; 501608,3640540; 

501614,3640540; 501792,3640541; 

501787,3640534; 501758,3640495; 

501737,3640451; 501734,3640444; 

501725,3640431; 501695,3640393; 

501689,3640387; 501684,3640381; 

501677,3640376; 501670,3640371; 

501655,3640361; 501614,3640291; 

501604,3640277; thence returning to 

501600,3640272. Lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 500470,3638670; 

500462,3638669; 500453,3638669; 

500444,3638670; 500436,3638671; 

500427,3638673; 500419,3638677; 

500411,3638680; 500404,3638685; 

500397,3638690; 500390,3638695; 

500384,3638701; 500378,3638708; 

500373,3638715; 500369,3638723; 

500365,3638730; 500365,3638731; 

500362,3638739; 500360,3638747; 

500360,3638748; 500372,3638771; 

500373,3638772; 500409,3638842; 

500433,3638889; 500468,3638955; 

500498,3639034; 500506,3639052; 

500518,3639066; 500534,3639092; 

500561,3639193; 500562,3639197; 

500607,3639314; 500623,3639355; 

500637,3639479; 500646,3639555; 

500648,3639573; 500655,3639637; 

500657,3639654; 500712,3639701; 

500753,3639736; 500764,3639745; 

500871,3639837; 500896,3639859; 

500881,3639827; 500858,3639781; 

500855,3639775; 500845,3639760; 

500815,3639724; 500784,3639649; 

500790,3639577; 500792,3639546; 

500792,3639533; 500792,3639514; 

500787,3639424; 500787,3639418; 

500759,3639164; 500756,3639148; 

500723,3639026; 500721,3639020; 

500719,3639013; 500716,3639007; 

500712,3639000; 500684,3638955; 

500675,3638943; 500674,3638941; 

500606,3638863; 500595,3638843; 

500583,3638783; 500581,3638776; 

500578,3638769; 500576,3638762; 

500572,3638755; 500568,3638749; 

500564,3638742; 500537,3638708; 

500531,3638701; 500525,3638695; 

500518,3638689; 500511,3638684; 

500504,3638680; 500496,3638676; 

500487,3638673; 500482,3638672; 

500479,3638671; thence returning to 

500470,3638670. 

(ii) Unit 2 for Monardella viminea, 

West Sycamore Canyon Unit, San Diego 

County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangles Poway and La Mesa, lands 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E,N): 499542,3637385; 

499559,3637384; 499579,3637426; 

499609,3637489; 499642,3637558; 

499667,3637544; 499661,3637527; 

499661,3637513; 499748,3637481; 

499750,3637476; 499754,3637468; 

499756,3637459; 499758,3637451; 

499759,3637447; 499743,3637451; 

499714,3637454; 499703,3637441; 

499666,3637441; 499651,3637432; 

499620,3637409; 499603,3637382; 

499589,3637348; 499572,3637318; 

499559,3637293; 499556,3637288; 

499554,3637292; 499551,3637300; 

499548,3637308; 499546,3637317; 

499544,3637325; 499544,3637334; 

499544,3637343; 499545,3637351; 

499546,3637360; 499549,3637368; 

499552,3637379; thence returning to 

499542,3637385. 

(iii) NOTE: Map of Unit 1 and Unit 2, 

Sycamore Canyon and West Sycamore 

Canyon, follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 13447 

* * * * * Dated: February 8, 2012. 

Rachel Jacobson, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3903 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER06MR12.001</GPH>