[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33880-33921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13912]



[[Page 33879]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 111

June 9, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Endangered 
Status, Revised Critical Habitat Designation, and Taxonomic Revision 
for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 33880]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0076]
RIN 1018-AX18


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Endangered 
Status, Revised Critical Habitat Designation, and Taxonomic Revision 
for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
recognize the recent change to the taxonomy of the currently endangered 
plant taxon, Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, in which the subspecies 
was split into two distinct full species, Monardella viminea (willowy 
monardella) and Monardella stoneana (Jennifer's monardella). Because 
the original subspecies, Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, was listed 
as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act), we are reviewing and updating the threats analysis that we 
completed for the taxon in 1998, when it was listed as a subspecies, to 
determine if any of that analysis has changed based on this revised 
taxonomy. We are also reviewing the status of the new species, 
Monardella stoneana. We propose that Monardella viminea's current 
listing status should be retained as endangered, and we propose to 
delist the portion of the old listed taxon that has been split off into 
the new species, Monardella stoneana, because it does not meet the 
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act. We also propose 
to designate critical habitat for Monardella viminea (willowy 
monardella). Approximately 348 acres (141 hectares) are proposed for 
designation as critical habitat for M. viminea, in San Diego County, 
California. We are not proposing to designate critical habitat for 
Monardella stoneana at this time because we do not believe this species 
warrants listing under the Act. However, should we determine, after 
review of the best available scientific information and public comment, 
that Monardella stoneana does warrant listing, we will propose critical 
habitat for Monardella stoneana, should it be determined to be prudent, 
in a separate proposed rule.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
August 8, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by July 25, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2010-0076, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type 
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You 
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2010-0076; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 
Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-
9440; facsimile 760-431-5901. If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) 
at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend any final action resulting from this proposed rule will 
be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as 
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments 
or information from other concerned government agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this 
proposed rule. Please note that throughout the remainder of this 
document we will use the currently recognized names, Monardella 
viminea, for references to willowy monardella, and Monardella stoneana, 
for references to Jennifer's monardella. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) Specific information regarding our recognition of Monardella 
viminea and M. stoneana at the species rank, on the segregation of 
ranges of M. stoneana and M. viminea, and on our proposals that M. 
viminea should remain listed as endangered and that M. stoneana does 
not warrant listing under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    (2) Any available information on known or suspected threats and 
proposed or ongoing development projects with the potential to threaten 
either Monardella viminea or M. stoneana.
    (3) The effects of potential threat factors to both Monardella 
viminea and M. stoneana that are the basis for a listing determination 
under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (4) Specific information regarding impacts of fire on Monardella 
viminea or M. stoneana individuals or their habitat.
    (5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act for Monardella viminea 
including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, 
the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, 
and whether that increase in threats outweighs the benefit of 
designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be 
prudent.
    (6) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Monardella viminea or M. 
stoneana habitat,
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are 
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the 
conservation of these species, should be included in the designation 
and why,
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change, and
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the species and why.
    (7) Information that may assist us in identifying or clarifying the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
Monardella viminea.
    (8) How the proposed critical habitat boundaries could be refined 
to more closely or accurately circumscribe the areas identified as 
containing the

[[Page 33881]]

physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
Monardella viminea.
    (9) How we could improve or modify our design of critical habitat 
units, particularly our criteria for width of essential habitat for 
Monardella viminea. We especially request information on West Sycamore 
Canyon and Unit 2 (where two groups of M. viminea were not included 
under the criteria used to draw proposed critical habitat boundaries) 
and areas such as Elanus, Lopez, and Rose Canyons that we have 
identified as not meeting the definition of critical habitat.
    (10) Information on pollinators of Monardella viminea or M. 
stoneana that may be essential for the conservation of these species, 
including information on areas that provide habitat for these 
pollinators.
    (11) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (12) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the two species and the proposed critical habitat.
    (13) Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of 
the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    (14) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families, 
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these 
impacts.
    (15) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation for Monardella viminea should be considered for 
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of 
potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of 
including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular for 
those lands covered by the County of San Diego Subarea Plan or the City 
of San Diego Subarea Plan under the Multiple Species Conservation 
Program (MSCP). Information on obtaining copies of these plans will be 
provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    (16) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
revised rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We 
will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not 
listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will post your entire comment--
including your personal identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request at the top of your document that 
we withhold personal information such as your street address, phone 
number, or e-mail address from public review; however, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available 
for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov (under Docket 
Number FWS-R8-ES-2010-0076), or by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received by the date listed in the DATES 
section. Such requests must be made in writing and be addressed to the 
Field Supervisor at the address provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if 
any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those 
hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
our recognition of the taxonomic split of Monardella linoides ssp. 
viminea into two distinct taxa: Monardella viminea (willowy monardella) 
and Monardella stoneana (Jennifer's monardella); the retention of M. 
viminea as endangered; the proposed critical habitat for M. viminea; 
and our conclusion that M. stoneana is not endangered or threatened. 
This proposed rule incorporates new information specific to M. viminea 
and M. stoneana including species descriptions, distributions, 
taxonomic rank, and nomenclature. We also provide information on 
current threats to the two species, potential pollinators, and 
additional information on soil not included in our listing rule for 
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea published in the Federal Register on 
October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54938), and our critical habitat designation 
published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65662).

Previous Federal Action

    Monardella linoides ssp. viminea was listed as endangered in 1998 
(63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). An account of Federal actions prior to 
listing may be found in the listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13, 
1998). On November 9, 2005, we published a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for M. linoides ssp. viminea (70 FR 67956). On 
November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65662), we published our final rule designating 
critical habitat for M. linoides ssp. viminea. On January 14, 2009, the 
Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint in the U.S. District 
Court for the Southern District of California challenging our 
designation of critical habitat for M. linoides ssp. viminea (Center 
for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 
Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, Case No. 3:09-CV-0050-MMA-
AJB). A settlement agreement was reached with the plaintiffs dated 
November 14, 2009, in which we agreed to submit a proposed revised 
critical habitat designation to the Federal Register for publication by 
February 18, 2011, and a final revised critical habitat designation to 
the Federal Register for publication by February 17, 2012. By order 
dated February 10, 2011, the district court approved a modification to 
the settlement agreement that extended the deadline for Federal 
Register submission to June 18, 2011, for the proposed revised critical 
habitat designation. The deadline for submission of a final revised 
critical habitat designation to the Federal Register remains February 
17, 2012.

Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Changes Affecting Monardella linoides ssp. 
viminea

    In 2001, Kelly and Burrascano (2001, p. 4) noted that ``multiple 
biologists'' had observed differences in the southernmost occurrences 
of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea. Kelly and Burrascano (2001, p. 4) 
also stated that Andrew Sanders of the University of California at 
Riverside believed the plants were a separate species. Elvin and 
Sanders (2003, pp. 425-432) subsequently segregated the southern 
occurrences of willowy monardella as a distinct taxon and recognized it 
at the species rank as M. stoneana (see Figure 1). Elvin and Sanders 
(2003, p. 430) also returned willowy monardella to its original 
specific rank as M. viminea. The Service initially disagreed with the 
segregation and classification of M. stoneana due to lack of sufficient

[[Page 33882]]

supportive evidence presented by Elvin and Sanders (Bartel and Wallace 
2004, pp. 1-3), a view continued in our 5-year review (Service 2008, 
pp. 6-7).
    Further genetic investigation of Monardella has recently been 
conducted using ISSR (Inter-Simple Sequence Repeats). ISSR is a general 
term for a genome region between microsatellite loci that can be used 
for DNA fingerprinting and delimiting species. ISSR analysis can have 
multiple application uses, including taxonomic studies of closely 
related species (Prince 2010, pers. comm.). Using ISSRs, Prince (2009, 
pp. 22-31) performed an extensive survey of Monardella taxa and found 
that M. stoneana and M. viminea were both more closely related to 
different subspecies of M. linoides than to each other. These data are 
supportive of the earlier recognition by the California Department of 
Fish and Game (CDFG), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 
and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) of M. viminea and M. 
stoneana as two separate taxa. Moreover, M. viminea and M. stoneana are 
treated as full species in the recently available online unpublished 
treatment of Monardella (Brunell et al., in press) that will be 
published in the forthcoming revision of the Jepson Manual, the 
standard guide to the flora of California. According to the authors 
(Brunell et al., in press), the two species can be morphologically 
differentiated based on slight differences in leaf width, bract length 
and width, and flower cluster width. Reportedly, M. viminea and M. 
stoneana will be similarly treated as separate species in the future 
treatment of the genus for the Flora of North America project (G. 
Wallace, Service 2010, pers. obs.). As a result of the new data and 
supportive references noted above, we propose to recognize the change 
in the taxonomic rank and nomenclature of the listed entity as two 
distinct species, M. viminea and M. stoneana. We have included those 
proposed changes in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of 
this rule, and we expect to adopt them when we publish a final 
determination for this action.
    When we listed Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, we considered 20 
occurrences to be extant in the United States (see Table 1) (63 FR 
54938; October 13, 1998). As of 2008, 9 occurrences were considered to 
be extirpated, leaving 11 extant occurrences (Service 2008, p. 5). All 
9 extirpated occurrences were in central San Diego County, in the range 
of what is now considered to be M. viminea. Based on updated 
information from Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar (Kassebaum 
2010, pers. comm.), two additional occurrences have since been 
extirpated, again in the range of M. viminea. Additionally, as a result 
of taxonomic changes, the two southernmost occurrences were 
reclassified as M. stoneana after the 2008 5-year review (see Table 1). 
Therefore, we believe there are now only seven occurrences of M. 
viminea, and these seven were extant at the time of listing. We are not 
aware of any new occurrences of M. viminea, other than those planted in 
2007 as a conservation measure to offset impacts associated with the 
development of the Carroll Canyon Business Park. More information on 
the four translocated occurrences is discussed in the Geographic Range 
and Status section below. In addition to two occurrences now considered 
to be M. stoneana (but considered at listing to be M. linoides ssp. 
viminea), we now know of an additional 7 occurrences of M. stoneana, 
all in what was once the southern range of M. linoides ssp. viminea 
(Figure 1). We presume those occurrences were extant at the time M. 
linoides ssp. viminea was listed. The single plant in the M. stoneana 
occurrence at Otay Lakes (M. stoneana EO 4, former M. viminea EO 28) 
was extirpated by the 2007 Harris fire. Therefore, we consider eight 
extant occurrences of M. stoneana.

Table 1--A Description of When Occurrences Were First Recognized by the Service, When They Were First Considered
                    Extirpated, and Which Occurrences the Service Currently Considers Extant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               CNDDB element      Known and
                  Location                       occurrence       extant at      Extant at 2008     Currently
                                                number (EO)        listing        5-yr review         extant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monardella viminea:
    Lopez Canyon............................               1                x                x                x
    Cemetery Canyon.........................               3                x   ...............  ...............
    Carroll Canyon..........................               4                x   ...............  ...............
    Sycamore Canyon.........................               8                x                x                x
    San Clemente Canyon.....................              11                x   ...............  ...............
    San Clemente Canyon.....................      12, 18, 19                x   ...............  ...............
    San Clemente Canyon.....................              13                x   ...............  ...............
    Murphy Canyon...........................              14                x   ...............  ...............
    Murphy Canyon...........................              15                x                x   ...............
    San Clemente Canyon.....................              16                x   ...............  ...............
    San Clemente Canyon.....................              17                x   ...............  ...............
    West Sycamore Canyon....................              21                x                x                x
    Elanus Canyon...........................              24                x                x                x
    Carroll Canyon..........................              25                x   ...............  ...............
    Spring Canyon...........................              26                x                x                x
    San Clemente Canyon.....................              27                x                x                x
    Otay Lakes..............................              28                x                x   Now considered
                                                                                                 M. stoneana EO4
    Sycamore Canyon.........................              29                x                x                x
    Miramar NAS.............................              31                x                x   ...............
    Marron Valley...........................            none                x                x   Now considered
                                                                                                 M. stoneana EO1
Monardella stoneana:
    Marron Valley...........................               1                x                x                x
    N.W. Otay Mountain......................               2   ...............               x                x

[[Page 33883]]

 
    N.W. Otay Mountain......................               3   ...............               x                x
    Otay Lakes..............................               4                x                x                x
    Buschalaugh Cove........................               5   ...............               x   ...............
    Cottonwood Creek........................               6   ...............               x                x
    Copper Canyon...........................               7   ...............               x                x
    S. of Otay Mountain.....................               8   ...............               x                x
    Tecate Peak.............................               9   ...............               x                x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: CNDDB 1998, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Service 2008, Kassebaum 2010.

    Throughout this document, we refer to previous reports and 
documents, including Federal Register publications. When evaluating 
information contained in documents issued prior to the present 
document, the reader must bear in mind that information may reference 
Monardella viminea as M. linoides ssp. viminea and may include 
statements or data referring to plants or populations now known as M. 
stoneana.
    Only information relevant to actions described in this proposed 
rule is provided below. For additional information on Monardella 
viminea, including a detailed description of its life history and 
habitat, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal 
Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54938), the final rule designating 
critical habitat published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2006 
(71 FR 65662), and the 5-year review completed in March 2008 (Service 
2008). Actions described below include status reviews of M. viminea and 
M. stoneana, and a proposed revision of the critical habitat 
designation for M. viminea.

Status Review--Monardella viminea

History of the Action

    Federal actions taken prior to listing are described in the listing 
rule published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 
54938). On November 9, 2005, we published a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (70 FR 67956). On 
November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65662), we published our final rule designating 
critical habitat for M. linoides ssp. viminea.
    As described in the Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Changes Affecting 
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea section, genetic investigations 
conducted since the listing in 1998 and completed after our 2008 5-year 
review have provided the needed additional support for the recognition 
of Monardella viminea and M. stoneana as separate taxa at the species 
rank. This necessitates a review of the listing status of the remaining 
M. viminea occurrences and an assessment of the potential listing 
status of the newly segregated M. stoneana.

Species Description

    Monardella viminea is a perennial herb or subshrub in the Lamiaceae 
(mint family) with a woody base and aromatic foliage. The waxy, green, 
hairy stems bear conspicuously gland-dotted linear or lance-shaped 
leaves, and dense, terminal clusters of white to rose-colored flowers. 
The leaves are 0.1-0.2 inch (in) (2-4 millimeters (mm)) wide at the 
base. The middle flower bracts are 0.4-0.6 in (10-15 mm) long (Elvin 
and Sanders 2003, p. 431). Monardella viminea grows in clumps of 1 to 4 
individual plants (Ince and Krantz 2008, p. 2). As the number of plants 
within a clump cannot be reliably distinguished without exposing the 
roots, M. viminea is usually counted by clumps rather than as 
individual plants. Please see the Discussion of the Four Species 
section of the listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998) and the 
Life History section of the 2005 proposed critical habitat rule (70 FR 
67956; November 9, 2005) for more information on this species 
description.

Habitat

    Monardella viminea occurs in coastal sage scrub and riparian scrub 
in sandy bottoms and on banks of ephemeral washes in canyons where 
surface water flows for usually less than 48 hours after a rain event 
(Scheid 1985, p. 3; Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 430; Kelly and 
Burrascano 2006, p. 51). These semi-open washes and drainage areas 
typically have little to no canopy cover (Reiser 1994, p. 139). The 
species is commonly found with Eriogonum fasciculatum (California 
buckwheat) and Baccharis sarothroides (broom baccharis) in habitats 
characterized by low herbaceous cover and some shrub cover (Scheid 
1985, p. 38). It is most commonly found in canyon bottoms, north-facing 
slopes, and along bends of meandering drainages (Elvin and Sanders 
2003, p. 426; Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 5). Many of these areas 
maintain water longer than other portions of the drainage, although 
they do not have long-term standing water (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 
426). At Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar, M. viminea is absent 
from steeper portions of the canyons and prevalent in secondary stream 
channels, which suggests M. viminea presence is correlated with reaches 
where flow is relatively slow-moving or standing water is present 
(Rebman and Dossey 2006a, pp. 5-8).
    Monardella viminea is found on soils characterized by a high 
content of coarse sandy grains and sediments and cobble deposits 
(Scheid 1985, p. 35). The larger sandy particles that make up M. 
viminea habitat soils are transported downstream by flood events 
(Scheid 1985, p. 36). Soil series that support M. viminea include Stony 
Land, Redding Gravelly Loam, Visalia Sandy Loam, and Riverwash (Scheid 
1985, p. 35; Rebman and Dossey 2006a, pp. 5-6).
    The 5-year review (Service 2008, p. 13) concluded that Monardella 
viminea requires a natural or managed regime of periodic, small fires. 
The coastal sage habitat that M. viminea favors benefits from small or 
managed fires that clear out dead or encroaching scrub vegetation and 
reduce nonnative species (Minnich 1983, p. 1290). However, there are 
two ways in which fire can negatively impact M. viminea habitat: (1) 
increased frequency of fires of all sizes, which can result in type 
conversion; or (2) invasion of nonnative grasses into riparian or 
coastal sage scrub habitats, which can choke out native vegetation, 
including shrubs associated with M. viminea. Additionally, large or 
unmanaged fires (sometimes referred to as ``megafires'')

[[Page 33884]]

can be a particular threat to a narrow endemic species like M. viminea 
because a single megafire could eliminate a large proportion of 
individual plants within the extant range of the species, although M. 
viminea is capable of resprouting after fire (Rebman and Dossey 2006b, 
p. 2). Additional information is needed regarding the role of fire in 
M. viminea habitat, particularly within riparian portions of canyons. 
Please see our request for information in the Public Comments section 
above. For more information on and discussion of the species' 
description and its habitat see the Discussion of the Four Species 
section of the listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998) and the 
Distribution and Status section of the proposed critical habitat rule 
(70 FR 67956; November 9, 2005). However, we ask the reader to keep in 
mind that plants now treated as M. stoneana and their habitat were 
included in the discussion at the time those documents were published.

Life History

    Very little is known about the germination and establishment of 
Monardella viminea. Mature plants flower readily, with inflorescences 
(flower heads) persisting for 10 to 12 weeks (Elvin and Sanders 2003, 
pp. 430-431). Plants are short-lived perennials, producing a new cohort 
of aerial stems each year from a persisting perennial root structure. 
Plants of this species are not known to be rhizomatous (connected by 
creeping underground stems); however, root masses may become detached 
over time, resulting in adjacent genetically identical but spatially 
separate plants. Rebman and Dossey (2006a, p. 10) reported that the 
peak flowering period at MCAS Miramar is early June to mid-July, with 
occasional flowering from May through August and, more rarely, into 
September.
    No pollination studies are known to exist for Monardella viminea; 
however, other Monardella taxa are visited by butterfly and bee species 
(Elvin 2004, p. 2). Bees collected from the closely related M. linoides 
include wasp-like bees (Hylaeus sp.), mason bees (Osmia spp. or 
Chalicodoma spp.), and miner bees (Anthophora spp.) (Hurd 1979, pp. 
1762, 1765, 2042, 2073, and 2164). Several observers report European 
honeybees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus spp.) as frequent 
visitors to M. viminea flowers (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, p. 7; Kelly 
and Burrascano 2006, pp. 7-8; Rebman and Dossey 2006a, pp. 10-11). 
Wasps and bees from the Bembicine and Andrenid families were collected 
from M. viminea plants on MCAS Miramar (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, p. 
8). Butterflies known to visit M. viminea flowers include painted 
ladies (Vanessa cardui) (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 11), gray 
hairstreaks (Strymon melinus), and funereal duskywing skippers (Erynnis 
funeralis) (University of California, Berkeley, CalPhotos database 
2009). Successful sexual reproduction of flowering plants often depends 
on pollinator abundance and effectiveness (Javorek et al. 2002, p. 
350). Therefore, adequate numbers of pollinators and sufficient 
pollinator movement through the habitat should be considered when 
assessing likely population distributions and survival, and habitat 
needs of M. viminea.

Geographic Range and Status

    Monardella viminea is a geographically narrow endemic species 
restricted to three watersheds north of Kearny Mesa in San Diego 
County, California (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 431). The occurrences 
now considered to be M. viminea are entirely in the northern range of 
the originally listed entity M. linoides ssp. viminea (Figure 1). The 
portions of the watersheds where M. viminea occurs are found on lands 
owned by the Department of Defense at MCAS Miramar, and lands owned by 
the City of San Diego, lands owned by the County of San Diego, and 
lands under private ownership. In this proposed critical habitat we use 
the word ``occurrence'' when describing the location of plants (e.g., 
in a critical habitat unit). In this context, we are referring to point 
locations or polygons representing observations of one or more M. 
viminea individuals. This may include one or more of the ``element 
occurrences'' (EOs) as described by CDFG in the CNDDB. Proposed 
critical habitat for M. viminea recognizes the importance of ecosystem 
processes that create and maintain suitable habitat for this species. 
Consequently, in the Critical Habitat sections of this document, our 
critical habitat units follow linear drainages that may include one or 
more of the ``element occurrences'' described by CNDDB. Because of the 
potentially transient nature of suitable habitat for this species, any 
reach along these drainages may be occupied at a given time. In all 
other respects in this document, ``element occurrence'' or 
``occurrence'' references are those from the cumulative data of the 
CNDDB (2010a, EOs 1-31).
    Figure 1. Range of Monardella viminea and M. stoneana.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 33885]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.037

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    As of 2008, all eleven known occurrences of Monardella viminea were 
considered declining in size (this total includes two occurrences known 
to be extirpated by 2010 and two occurrences now considered M. 
stoneana), as are four additional transplanted occurrences (see 
Transplants below) (Ince and Krantz 2008, p. 9; Service 2008 p. 5). On 
MCAS Miramar, the species has declined by 45 percent since the 2002 
surveys, from 3,379 individual plants to 1,809 individual plants 
(Tierra Data 2011, p. 12). In the past 2 years, multiple clumps of M. 
viminea that burned in the 2003 Cedar Fire have resprouted (Kassebaum 
2010, pers. comm.). The most recent survey of MCAS Miramar, conducted 
in 2009, found juveniles or seedlings present in all canyons except for 
Elanus (Tierra Data 2011, pp. 17-18). Prior to this survey, juveniles 
were only confirmed present in West Sycamore Canyon (Kassebaum 2010, 
pers. comm.).

Transplants

    In addition to the seven currently remaining natural occurrences, 
in 2007, Monardella viminea was transplanted to four sites within the 
historical range of the species as a conservation measure to offset 
impacts associated with development of the Carroll Canyon Business 
Park. Three of the transplanted sites were in Carroll Canyon and the 
fourth in San Clemente Canyon (Ince 2010, p. 3). Most of the M. viminea

[[Page 33886]]

transplants have experienced low survival rates, generally less than 20 
percent, although one Carroll Canyon transplanted occurrence was 
reported to have a 44 percent survival rate (Service 2003, p. 25; Ince 
2010, p. 8).

Summary of Factors Affecting Monardella viminea

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 
set forth the criteria for determining whether a species is endangered 
or threatened under the Act. A species may be determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. Each of these factors for Monardella viminea is discussed 
below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

Urbanization/Development
    The original listing rule identified urban and residential 
development as a threat to Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 
54938; October 13, 1998). Prior to 1992, San Diego had grown by ``a 
factor of 10 over the last 50 years'' (Soule et al. 1992, p. 39). At 
the time of listing, two large occurrences were located on private 
property and development proposals existed for one of these two 
parcels. Since listing, one of those two occurrences has been 
extirpated due to construction activities: EO 25 from the Carroll 
Canyon Business Park (CNDDB 2010a). Additionally, EO 14 in Murphy 
Canyon was believed extirpated after listing due to lingering impacts 
from construction activity near Highway 15 (CNDDB 2010a). Two 
occurrences at MCAS Miramar have been partially destroyed by road 
construction since the time of listing.
    The Cities of San Diego and Santee have purchased private property 
as reserve land for Monardella viminea. Most occurrences are now found 
on land conserved or owned by MCAS Miramar, the City of San Diego, and 
the County of San Diego. Lands owned by the City and County of San 
Diego are covered by the MSCP, which is a habitat conservation plan 
(HCP) intended to maintain and enhance biological diversity in the San 
Diego region, and to conserve viable populations of endangered, 
threatened, and key sensitive species and their habitats (including M. 
viminea). The MSCP plan designates lands to be set aside for biological 
preserves. However, 20 percent of habitat for M. viminea occurs on 
privately owned land outside of the reserve areas. This habitat 
includes M. viminea occurrences in Sycamore and Spring Canyons 
(portions of EOs 8 and 26), and a transplanted occurrence where plants 
were removed for construction of the Carroll Canyon Business Park (Ince 
and Krantz 2008, p. 1). Any sites outside of the MSCP reserve areas are 
vulnerable to development; portions of Sycamore Canyon where M. viminea 
occurs were previously slated for development (Service 2003, pp. 1-23), 
though the project has been put on hold due to bankruptcy issues, and 
no development is scheduled (San Diego Business Journal 2011, pp. 1-3).
    However, the occurrences discussed above represent only a small 
proportion of habitat that contains clumps of Monardella viminea. 
Seventy percent of land where M. viminea occurs is owned and managed by 
MCAS Miramar, and all remaining large occurrences (with more than 100 
clumps of M. viminea) are found on MCAS Miramar. All canyon areas on 
the base are protected from development. Therefore, although 
urbanization does threaten some occurrences of M. viminea, the threat 
to the species' habitat is not significant across the range of the 
species, now or in the foreseeable future.
Sand and Gravel Mining
    Sand and gravel mining has broad-scale disruptive qualities to 
native ecosystems (Kondolf et al. 2002, p. 56). Sand and gravel mining 
was identified at the time of listing as adversely affecting Monardella 
linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). The larger of 
two occurrences (340 individuals) found on private land at the time of 
listing was identified as being threatened by sand and gravel mining, 
which was a threat that had the potential to eliminate or disrupt these 
local populations through changes in hydrology and elimination of 
individual plants. Since listing, all occurrences vulnerable to mining 
impacts have since been extirpated, either by altered drainage patterns 
or construction unrelated to mining operations (CNDDB 2010, EOs 3 and 
25). Currently, we are not aware of any ongoing mining activities or 
any plans for future mining activities that would impact the species. 
While we may not be fully aware of all potential gravel mining 
activities on private lands, few M. viminea occurrences are on private 
land. Therefore, we do not consider sand and gravel mining to currently 
be a threat to M. viminea, nor a threat in the foreseeable future.
Altered Hydrology
    The original listing rule identified altered hydrology as a threat 
to Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, particularly to portions of the 
habitat now considered to be in the range of M. viminea (63 FR 54938; 
October 13, 1998). Monardella viminea requires a natural hydrological 
system to maintain the secondary benches and streambeds on which it 
grows (Scheid 1985, pp. 30-31, 34-35). Upstream development can disrupt 
this regime, increasing storm runoff which can in turn erode the sandy 
banks and secondary benches upon which M. viminea grows. Floods also 
have the potential to wash away plants much larger than M. viminea, as 
has occurred in Lopez Canyon during heavy runoff following winter 
storms (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, pp. 2-3). This flood severely 
impacted the M. viminea occurrences in Lopez Canyon (Kelly and 
Burrascano 2006, pp. 65-69). Additionally, areas where altered 
hydrology caused decreased flows may experience an increase in invasion 
by nonnative species into creek beds, which can smother seedling and 
mature plants, and prevent natural growth of M. viminea (Rebman and 
Dossey 2006a, p. 12).
    Changes in local and regional hydrology have had detrimental 
effects on Monardella viminea. Increases in surface and subsurface soil 
moisture (via direct effects to the water table associated with 
watershed urbanization) and changing streams from ephemeral to 
perennial adversely affect native plants adapted to a drier 
Mediterranean climate (cool moist winters and hot dry summers), such as 
M. viminea. Watershed urbanization alters the riparian vegetation 
community through changes in median and minimum daily discharges, dry 
season run-off, and flood magnitudes, specifically for Los 
Pe[ntilde]asquitos Creek and other locations (White and Greer 2006, pp. 
133-136). Nonnative species incursion has been exacerbated by the 
changing water regime (underground hydrology), and M. viminea has been 
unable to adapt to the increased soil moisture (Burrascano 2007, pers. 
comm.).
    Since listing, three occurrences have been extirpated due to 
altered hydrological patterns: Cemetery Canyon, Carroll Canyon, and 
western

[[Page 33887]]

San Clemente Canyon. All three of these occurrences are on city-owned 
or private land (CNDDB 2010a, EOs 3, 4, 11). On MCAS Miramar, 
watersheds on the undeveloped eastern half of the base, where most 
large occurrences of Monardella viminea are found, appear to have 
retained their natural hydrological regime (Rebman and Dossey 2006, p. 
37). The only canyon on MCAS Miramar with substantial development and a 
historic occurrence of M. viminea is Rose Canyon. This location has 
lost all but one individual M. viminea (Rebman and Dossey 2006, p. 37).
    Considering synergistic and cumulative effects of these combined 
hydrological threats, exacerbated by heavy development surrounding 
several canyons, we expect that altered hydrology will continue to pose 
a significant threat to habitats that support Monardella viminea, 
particularly outside the border of MCAS Miramar. We anticipate that 
this threat will continue into the foreseeable future.
Fire and Type Conversion
    The listing rule mentioned that fuel modification to exclude fire 
could affect Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 
1998); the same is true of the reclassified M. viminea and its habitat. 
Otherwise, fire was not considered a severe threat to the species at 
the time of listing.
    Our understanding of fire in fire-dependent habitat has changed 
since Monardella linoides ssp. viminea was listed in 1998 (Dyer 2002, 
pp. 295-296). Fire is a natural component for regeneration and 
maintenance of M. viminea habitat. The species' habitat needs 
concerning fire seem contradictory: A total lack of fire for long 
periods is undesirable, because the fires that eventually will occur 
can be catastrophic; yet re-introduction of fire (either accidentally 
or purposefully) is also undesirable, because such fires often become 
catastrophic as a result of previous lack of fire (i.e., megafires). 
This conflicting situation has resulted from a disruption of the 
natural fire regime.
    Fire frequency has increased in North American Mediterranean 
Shrublands in California since about the 1950s, and studies indicate 
that southern California has demonstrated the greatest increase in 
wildfire ignitions, primarily due to an increase in population density 
beginning in the 1960s, and thus increasing the amount of human-caused 
fires (Keeley and Fotheringham 2003, p. 240). Increased wildfire 
frequency and decreased return fire interval, in conjunction with other 
effects of urbanization, such as increased nitrogen deposition and 
habitat disturbance due to foot and vehicle traffic, are believed to 
have resulted in the conversion of large areas of coastal sage scrub to 
nonnative grasslands in southern California (Service 2003, pp. 57-62; 
Brooks et al. 2004, p. 677; Keeley et al. 2005, p. 2109; Marschalek and 
Klein 2010, p. 8). This type conversion (conversion of one type of 
habitat to another) produces a positive feedback mechanism resulting in 
more frequent fires and increasing nonnative plant cover (Brooks et al. 
2004, p. 677; Keeley et al. 2005, p. 2109).
    However, threats to the habitat from fire exclusion, which impacts 
processes that historically created and maintained suitable habitat for 
Monardella viminea, may make it even more vulnerable to extinction. The 
long-term ecological effects of fire exclusion have not been 
specifically detailed for M. viminea; however, we believe the effects 
of fire, fire suppression, and fire management in southern California 
habitats will be similar to that at locations in the Rockies, Cascades, 
and Sierra Nevada Mountains (Keane et al. 2002, pp. 15-16). Fire 
exclusion in southern California habitat likely affects: (1) Nutrient 
recycling, (2) natural regulation of succession via selecting and 
regenerating plants, (3) biological diversity, (4) biomass, (5) insect 
and disease populations, (6) interaction between plants and animals, 
and (7) biological and biogeochemical processes (i.e., soil property 
alteration) (after Keane et al. 2002, p. 8). Where naturally occurring 
fire is excluded, species that are adapted to fire (such as M. viminea) 
are often replaced by nonnative, invasive species that are better 
suited to the same areas in the absence of fire (Keane et al. 2002, p. 
9).
    Some fire management is provided by CAL FIRE, which is an emergency 
response and resource protection department. CAL FIRE creates fire 
management plans to identify prevention measures that reduce risk, 
inform and involve the local communities in the area, and provide a 
framework to diminish potential wildfire losses and implement all 
applicable fire management regulations and policies (CAL FIRE 2011b; 
County of San Diego 2011a). CAL FIRE has signed a document to assist in 
management of backcountry areas in San Diego County, including Sycamore 
Canyon Ranch and its Monardella viminea occurrence (DPR 2009, p. 14; 
County of San Diego 2011, p. 1). However, the land protected under this 
agreement is only two percent of all M. viminea habitat.
    Therefore, given the conversion of coastal sage scrub to nonnative 
grasses and the changing fire regime of southern California, we 
consider type conversion and the habitat effects of altered fire 
regime, particularly from increased frequency of fire, to be a 
significant threat to M. viminea's habitat both now and in the 
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
    Monardella viminea continues to be threatened by habitat loss and 
degradation by altered hydrological regimes that can result in 
uncontrollable flood events. Habitat of this species is also threatened 
by an unnatural fire regime resulting from manmade disturbance and 
activities, which in turn can cause invasion of the area by nonnative 
plants. Of the seven natural and four transplanted occurrences, those 
that are in areas where continued development is expected to occur may 
experience further alterations to hydrology and fire regimes. These 
threats to habitat are occurring now and are expected to continue into 
the foreseeable future.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    To our knowledge, no commercial use exists for Monardella viminea. 
The listing rule suggested that professional and private botanical 
collecting could exacerbate the extirpation threat to the species due 
to botanists favoring rare or declining species (63 FR 54938; October 
13, 1998). However, we are not currently aware of any interest by 
botanists in collecting M. viminea. Therefore, we do not believe that 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes constitutes a threat to this species now or in the 
foreseeable future.

C. Disease or Predation

    Neither disease nor predation was known to be a threat affecting 
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998) at the 
time of listing. Volunteers have since noted grazing impacts to 
occurrences of M. viminea in Lopez Canyon (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, 
p. 5). However, this occurrence is the only documented location where 
grazing has occurred, and impacts were minimal. Therefore, based on the 
best available scientific and commercial information, neither disease 
nor herbivory constitute threats to M. viminea now or in the 
foreseeable future.

[[Page 33888]]

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    At the time of listing, regulatory mechanisms that provided some 
protection for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea that apply to 
Monardella viminea included: (1) The Act in cases where M. viminea co-
occurred with a Federally listed species; (2) the California Endangered 
Species Act (CESA); (3) the California Environmental Quality Act 
(CEQA); (4) implementation of conservation plans pursuant to 
California's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act; (5) land 
acquisition and management by Federal, State, or local agencies, or by 
private groups and organizations; and (6) local laws and regulations. 
The listing rule analyzed the potential level of protection provided by 
these regulatory mechanisms (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998).
    Currently, Monardella linoides ssp. viminea is listed as endangered 
under the Act (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). Provisions for its 
protection and recovery are outlined in sections 4, 7, 9 and 10 of the 
Act. This law is the primary mechanism for protecting M. viminea, 
which, as part of the original listed entity, currently retains 
protection under the Act. However, the protections afforded to M. 
viminea under the Act as part of M. linoides ssp. viminea, the 
currently listed entity, would continue to apply only if we determine 
to retain listed status for M. viminea. Therefore, for purposes of our 
analysis, we do not include the Act as an existing regulatory mechanism 
that protects M. viminea. We do note that M. viminea would likely 
continue to receive protection indirectly through habitat conservation 
plans (HCPs) approved under section10 of the Act and Natural Community 
Conservation Plans (NCCPs) approved under the State of California that 
will cover M. viminea even if the species is not Federally listed.
Federal Protections
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 
projects they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-
1518) state that in their environmental impact statements agencies 
shall include a discussion on the environmental impacts of the various 
project alternatives (including the proposed action), any adverse 
environmental effects which cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or 
irretrievable commitments of resources involved (40 CFR 1502). The NEPA 
itself is a disclosure law that provides an opportunity for the public 
to submit comments on a particular project and propose other 
conservation measures that may directly benefit listed species; 
however, it does not impose substantive environmental mitigation 
obligations on Federal agencies. Any such measures are typically 
voluntary in nature and are not required by the statute. Activities on 
non-Federal lands are also subject to NEPA if there is a Federal nexus.
    Sikes Act
    In 1997, section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a(a)) was 
revised by the Sikes Act Improvement Act to authorize the Secretary of 
Defense to implement a program to provide for the conservation and 
rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations. To do 
so, the Department of Defense was required to work with Federal and 
State fish and wildlife agencies to prepare an integrated natural 
resources management plan (INRMP) for each facility with significant 
natural resources. The INRMPs provide a planning tool for future 
improvements; provide for sustainable multipurpose use of the 
resources, including activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, and 
non-consumptive uses; and allow some public access to military 
installations. At MCAS Miramar and other military installations, INRMPs 
provide direction for project development and for the management, 
conservation, and rehabilitation of natural resources, including M. 
viminea and its habitat.
    Approximately 70 percent of the remaining habitat for Monardella 
viminea occurs within MCAS Miramar. The Marine Corps completed an INRMP 
(2006-2010) with the advice of the Service (Gene Stout and Associates 
2006, p. ES-2). The 2011-2014 INRMP is expected to be published by the 
military in the upcoming weeks. This new INRMP continues to benefit the 
species by spatially and temporally protecting known populations on 
MCAS Miramar, most of which are not fragmented. Over 99 percent of all 
M. viminea occurrences on the base occur in Type I or II management 
areas, where conservation of listed species, including M. viminea, is a 
priority (Gene Stout and Associates 2006, pp. 5-2, 5-5). MCAS Miramar 
manages invasive species, a significant threat to M. viminea, in 
compliance with Executive Order 13112, which states that Federal 
agencies must provide for the control of invasive species (Gene Stout 
and Associates 2006, p. 7-3). Invasive species management is a must-
fund project to be carried out annually, following guidelines 
established in the National Invasive Species Management Plan (Gene 
Stout and Associates 2006, p. 7-7). This plan mandates control measures 
for invasive species through a combination of measures including 
pesticides and mechanical removal (National Invasive Species Council 
2001, p. 37), thus providing a benefit by addressing type conversion 
that results following fires (see Factor A above). It also provides 
wildland fire management, including creation of fuelbreaks, a 
prescribed burning plan, and research on the effects of wildfire on 
local habitat types (Gene Stout and Associates 2006, pp. 7-8--7-9). As 
a result, MCAS Miramar is addressing threats related to the potential 
stress of fire on individual plants (see Factor E). Despite the 
benefits to M. viminea provided through the INRMP, the species 
continues to decline on MCAS Miramar, due likely to the synergistic 
effects of flood, reduced shrub numbers, and exotic species 
encroachment (type conversion) following the 2003 Cedar wildfire 
(Tierra Data 2011, p. 26).
State and Local Regulations
California's Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) and Endangered Species 
Act (CESA)
    Under provisions of NPPA (Division 2, chapter 10 section 1900 et 
seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG code)) and CESA 
(Division 3, chapter 1.5, section 2050 et seq. of CFG code), the CDFG 
Commission listed Monardella linoides ssp. viminea as endangered in 
1979. Currently, the State of California recognizes the State-listed 
entity as M. viminea.
    Both the CESA and NPPA include prohibitions forbidding the ``take'' 
of State endangered and listed species (Chapter 10, Section 1908 and 
Chapter 1.5, Section 2080, CFG code). With regard to prohibitions of 
unauthorized take under NPPA, landowners are exempt from this 
prohibition for plants to be taken in the process of habitat 
modification. When landowners are notified by the State that a rare or 
endangered plant is growing on their land, the landowners are required 
to notify CDFG 10 days in advance of changing land use in order to 
allow salvage of listed plants. Sections 2081(b) and (c) of CESA allow 
CDFG to issue incidental take permits for State-listed threatened 
species if:
    (1) The authorized take is incidental to an otherwise lawful 
activity;
    (2) The impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully 
mitigated;

[[Page 33889]]

    (3) The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the 
impacts of the authorized take are roughly proportional in extent to 
the impact of the taking of the species, maintain the applicant's 
objectives to the greatest extent possible, and are capable of 
successful implementation;
    (4) Adequate funding is provided to implement the required 
minimization and mitigation measures and to monitor compliance with and 
the effectiveness of the measures; and
    (5) Issuance of the permit will not jeopardize the continued 
existence of a State-listed species.
    The relationship between the NPPA and CESA has not been clearly 
defined under state law. The NPPA, which has been characterized as an 
exception to the take prohibitions of CESA, exempts a number of 
activities from regulation including: clearing of land for agricultural 
practices or fire control measures; removal of endangered or rare 
plants when done in association with an approved timber harvesting 
plan, or mining work performed pursuant to Federal or State mining 
laws, or by a public utility providing service to the public; or when a 
landowner proceeds with changing the use on their land in a manner that 
could result in take, provided the landowner notifies CDFG at least 10 
days in advance of the change. These exemptions indicate that CESA and 
NPPA may be inadequate to protect Monardella viminea and its habitat, 
including from activities such as development/urbanization, altered 
hydrology or fuel modification.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
    The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources 
Code 21000-21177) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of 
Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387) 
require State and local agencies to identify the significant 
environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those 
impacts, if feasible. The CEQA applies to projects proposed to be 
undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government 
agencies, and the lead agency must complete the environmental review 
process required by CEQA, including conducting an initial study to 
identify the environmental impacts of the project and determine whether 
the identified impacts are significant; if significant impacts are 
determined, then an environmental impact report must be prepared to 
provide State and local agencies and the general public with detailed 
information on the potentially significant environmental effects 
(California Environmental Resources Evaluation System 2010). 
``Thresholds of Significance'' are comprehensive criteria used to 
define environmental significant impacts based on quantitative and 
qualitative standards and include impacts to biological resources such 
as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional 
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or the Service; or any 
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in 
local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or 
Service (CEQA Handbook, Appendix G, 2010). Defining these significance 
thresholds helps ensure a ``rational basis for significance 
determinations'' and provides support for the final determination and 
appropriate revisions or mitigation actions to a project in order to 
develop a mitigated negative declaration rather than an environmental 
impact report (Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1994, p. 5). 
Under CEQA, projects may move forward if there is a statement of 
overriding consideration. If significant effects are identified, the 
lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation through changes in 
the project or to decide that overriding considerations make mitigation 
infeasible (CEQA section 21002). Protection of listed species through 
CEQA is, therefore, dependent upon the discretion of the lead agency 
involved.
California's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act
    The NCCP program is a cooperative effort between the State of 
California and numerous private and public partners with the goal of 
protecting habitats and species. An NCCP identifies and provides for 
the regional or area-wide protection of plants, animals, and their 
habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. 
The program began in 1991, under the State's NCCP Act (CFG Code 2800-
2835). The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural 
communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land 
uses (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/). Regional NCCPs provide 
protection to Federally listed species, and often unlisted species, by 
conserving native habitats upon which the species depend. Many NCCPs 
are developed in conjunction with HCPs prepared pursuant to the Act. 
The City and County of San Diego Subarea Plans under the MSCP are 
discussed below.
City of San Diego and County of San Diego Subarea Plans under the 
Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP)
    The MSCP is a sub-regional HCP and NCCP made up of several subarea 
plans that have been in place for more than a decade. Under the 
umbrella of the MSCP, each of the 12 participating jurisdictions is 
required to prepare a subarea plan that implements the goals of the 
MSCP within that particular jurisdiction. The sub-regional MSCP covers 
582,243 ac (235,625 ha) within the county of San Diego. Habitat 
conservation plans and multiple species conservation plans approved 
under section 10 of the Act are intended to protect covered species by 
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts.
    The MSCP Subarea Plan for the City of San Diego includes Monardella 
viminea (denominated as M. linoides ssp. viminea) as a covered species. 
The City's subarea plan designates land to be set aside for a 
biological preserve (City of San Diego 1997, p. 1-1). As of January 
2011, less than 20 percent of all M. viminea occurrences were in the 
City of San Diego MSCP plan area (Service 2008, p. 10); the majority of 
the other occurrences are on lands owned by MCAS Miramar, with small 
numbers of clumps occurring on private and county-owned lands. Almost 
all occurrences that occur within the City of San Diego's MSCP Subarea 
Plan area have been protected in MSCP reserves and are annually 
monitored (City of San Diego 2010, p. 1). However, the management plan 
for the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan has not been finalized; 
thus long-term management and monitoring provisions for this plant are 
not in place. Although management needs are frequently identified for 
M. viminea, the actions are not carried out on a regular basis to 
decrease threats to the plants, such as presence of nonnative 
vegetation and altered hydrology.
    Within the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, further protections 
are afforded by the Environmentally Sensitive Lands ordinance (ESL). 
The ESL provides protection for sensitive biological resources 
(including Monardella viminea and its habitat), by ensuring that 
development occurs ``in a manner that protects the overall quality of 
the resources and the natural and topographic character of the area, 
encourages a sensitive form of development, retains biodiversity and 
interconnected habitats, maximizes physical and visual public access to 
and along the shoreline, and reduces hazards due to flooding in 
specific areas

[[Page 33890]]

while minimizing the need for construction of flood control 
facilities,'' thus providing protection against alteration of 
hydrology, a significant threat to M. viminea. The ESL was designed to 
act as an implementing tool for the City of San Diego Subarea Plan 
(City of San Diego 1997, p. 98).
    The County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan covers 252,132 ac 
(102,035 ha) of unincorporated county lands in the southwestern portion 
of the MSCP plan area. Only two percent of Monardella viminea habitat 
occurs on County lands. The entirety of this habitat is included within 
the Sycamore Canyon Preserve established under the County of San Diego 
MSCP Subarea Plan. In 2009, a management plan was published for the 
preserve, with monitoring anticipated to begin in 2013. The plan 
specifically addresses M. viminea through removal of nonnative 
vegetation, habitat restoration, and implementation of a managed fire 
regime with a priority of protecting biological resources (DPR 2009, 
pp. 71, 76-77). Additionally, the plan mandates management to address 
the ``natural history of the species and to reduce the risk of 
catastrophic fire,'' possibly including prescribed fire (DPR 2009, p. 
71); these measures address the stressor of fire on individual plants 
(Factor E) and the threat of type conversion due to frequent fire 
(Factor A).
Summary of Factor D
    In determining whether Monardella viminea should be retained as a 
listed species under the Act, we analyze the adequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms without regard to current protections afforded 
under the Act. The majority (greater than 70 percent) of M. viminea 
occurrences are on MCAS Miramar. The base has developed and is 
implementing an INRMP under the Sikes Act to protect these occurrences 
(Factor E) and is addressing threats from type conversion due to 
frequent fire (Factor A). However, notwithstanding the benefit to M. 
viminea provided by the INRMP, the synergistic effects of flood, 
reduced shrub numbers, frequent fire, and nonnative species 
encroachment are resulting in a decline of M. viminea on the base 
(Factor E). While the INRMP does not eliminate threats to the species 
from megafire, we do not believe megafire impacts are susceptible to a 
regulatory fix.
    The majority of Monardella viminea occurrences outside of MCAS 
Miramar are located within land owned by the City of San Diego, and 
they receive protection under the City of San Diego's MSCP Subarea 
Plan, which was approved under CESA and NCCP Act. The City of San 
Diego's MSCP Subarea plan provides protective mechanisms for M. viminea 
for proposed projects; these protective mechanisms are intended to 
address potential impacts that could threaten the species, such as 
development or actions that could result in altered hydrology. One such 
plan was developed for the city-owned land within West Sycamore Canyon. 
This land, a total of 21 ac (9 ha), was included within the development 
project entitled Sycamore Estates. This plan included monitoring of M. 
viminea occurrences within West Sycamore Canyon and provisions to 
prevent altered hydrology to areas containing M. viminea through 
construction of mechanisms such as silt fences to prevent erosion and 
subsequent alteration of channel structure (T&B Planning Consultants 
2001, pp. 136, 166). However, Sycamore Estates was never completed (see 
Factor A), and no monitoring has taken place in West Sycamore Canyon. 
Therefore, the plan addressing construction on Sycamore Estates is not 
currently protecting M. viminea.
    The City of San Diego Subarea Plan also includes provisions for 
monitoring and management through development of location-specific 
management plans for preserve land. However, the City of San Diego MSCP 
Subarea Plan has not developed final monitoring and management plans 
for M. viminea. As a result, even though occurrences of M. viminea are 
monitored on a yearly basis and management needs for M. viminea habitat 
are identified, conservation measures to ameliorate immediate and 
significant threats to the species from nonnative species and 
alteration of hydrology are not actively being implemented because the 
management plans are not yet in place. With regards to lands covered by 
the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan (two percent of the species' 
habitat), regulatory mechanisms are in place to conserve and manage 
Monardella viminea.
    Despite the protections afforded to Monardella viminea under the 
Sikes Act through the INRMP for MCAS Miramar and the protections 
afforded under the City of San Diego and County of San Diego plans, we 
conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms at this time are 
inadequate to alleviate the threats to this species in the absence of 
the protections afforded by the Act.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Trampling
    Trampling was identified as a threat to Monardella linoides ssp. 
viminea in the listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). Trampling 
of M. viminea occurs via human travel through the habitat of the 
species. This factor has not been quantified, and to date is only 
suspected to be a threat to M. viminea via direct mortality and 
increasing rates of erosion (Service 2008, p. 11). Trampling on private 
lands cannot currently be controlled and could impact populations 
located on private lands; however, few occurrences are located on 
private lands, and we have no evidence of trampling-related mortality. 
Therefore, we do not consider trampling to be a significant threat 
across the range of the species.
Nonnative Plant Species
    The listing rule identifies nonnative plants as a threat to 
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998); this 
threat is ongoing for the occurrences of the listed entity now 
considered to be M. viminea. San Diego County habitats have been 
altered by invasion of nonnative species (Soule et al. 1992, p. 43). 
Nonnative grasses, which frequently out-compete native species for 
limited resources and grow more quickly, can smother seedling and 
mature M. viminea and prevent natural growth (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, 
p. 12). Nonnative plants also have the potential to lower water tables 
and alter rates of sedimentation and erosion by altering soil 
chemistry, nutrient levels, and the physical structure of soil. As 
such, they can often out-compete native species such as M. viminea 
(Kassebaum 2007, pers. comm.). Nonnative plants also alter frequencies, 
size, and intensity of fires (flame duration and length, soil 
temperature during a fire, and after-effects of long-term porosity and 
soil glassification, in which high heat causes silica particles in the 
soil to fuse together to form an impermeable barrier) (Vitousek et al. 
1997, pp. 8-9; Arno and Fielder 2005, p. 19).
    When the processes of natural disturbance, such as fire regime and 
normal storm flow events, are altered, native and nonnative plants can 
overcome otherwise suitable habitat for Monardella viminea (Kassebaum 
2007, pers. comm.). At least four occurrences of M. viminea are 
believed to have been extirpated since listing due in part to invasion 
of native and nonnative plant species (CNDDB 2010a; EOs 11, 12, 13, and 
15). Nonnative plants are present throughout all canyons on MCAS 
Miramar where M. viminea occurs, occupying areas that might instead be 
colonized by M. viminea seedlings (Tierra Data 2011, p. 29). Areas 
heavily invaded by nonnative grasses have fewer adult M. viminea plants 
than areas

[[Page 33891]]

free from invasion, or feature adult plants that have been reduced in 
size after the encroachment of nonnative species (Tierra Data 2011, p. 
29). Additionally, one occurrence monitored by the City of San Diego 
has undergone a rapid increase in nonnative plant cover, climbing from 
26 percent in 2008 to 71 percent in 2010 (City of San Diego 2008, p. 1; 
City of San Diego 2010, p. 11).
    Due to the absence or alteration of the natural disturbance 
processes within the range of Monardella viminea that has caused 
competition for space and nutrients, increased fire intensity, and 
extirpation of M. viminea occurrences since listing, we consider 
nonnative plant species to be a significant factor threatening the 
continued existence of the species, both now and in the foreseeable 
future.
Small Population Size and Restricted Range
    The listing rule identified the restricted range and small 
population size of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea as threats. These 
conditions increase the possibility of extinction due to chance events, 
such as floods, fires, or drought, beyond the natural variability of 
the ecosystem (Lande 1993, p. 912; 60 FR 40549, August 9, 1995). Chance 
or stochastic events have occurred in the range of M. viminea, and it 
is very possible that these events may continue to make M. viminea 
vulnerable to extinction, because of M. viminea's small numbers and 
limited range. Of the 20 occurrences of M. viminea known at the time of 
listing, 5 had fewer than 100 individuals. None of the smallest five 
populations were protected at the time of listing, and all have since 
been extirpated due to competition with nonnative grasses, 
construction, or unknown reasons (CNDDB 2010). As stated earlier, only 
7 natural occurrences remain. Currently, despite their protection on 
reserve lands, many of the largest occurrences with multiple clumps and 
the healthiest-looking leaves and flowers are still declining in 
number.
    In particular, small population size makes it difficult for 
Monardella viminea to persist while sustaining the impacts of fire, 
altered hydrologic regimes, and competition with nonnative plants. 
Prior to the 2008 5-year review, monitoring of the MCAS Miramar 
occurrences indicated that the population had declined significantly 
for unknown reasons that could not be clearly linked to the cumulative 
impacts of fire, herbivory, or hydrological regimes (Rebman and Dossey 
2006a, p. 14). Since the 2006 surveys by Rebman and Dossey at MCAS 
Miramar, plants damaged in the 2003 fire have resprouted from the root. 
Despite the fact that plants have resprouted, biological monitors at 
MCAS Miramar report that the decline continues and the cause is 
unknown, with 45 percent of the population on MCAS Miramar lost since 
2002 (Kassebaum 2010, pers. comm.; Tierra Data 2011, p. 12). No 
empirical information is readily available to estimate the rate of 
population decrease or time to extinction for M. viminea; however, its 
habitat and population have decreased since the time of listing. 
Therefore, based on the best available scientific information, we 
consider that small population size and the declining trend of M. 
viminea exacerbate the threats attributable to other factors.
Fire
    Although the habitat occupied by Monardella viminea is dependent 
upon some form of disturbance to reset succession processes (such as 
periodic fire and scouring floods), we considered whether megafire 
events have the potential to severely impact or eliminate populations 
by killing large numbers of individual plants, their underground 
rhizomes (stems), and the soil seed bank. Also, severe fire could leave 
the soil under hydrophobic conditions, in which the soil becomes water-
repellant, often resulting in plants receiving an inadequate amount of 
water (Agee 1996, pp. 157-158; Keane et al. 2002, p. 8; Keeley 2001, p. 
87; Arno and Fiedler 2005, p. 19).
    Recently, San Diego County has been impacted by multiple large fire 
events, a trend that is expected to continue. A model by Snyder et al. 
(2002, p. 9-3) suggests higher average temperatures for every month in 
every part of California, which would create drier, more combustible 
fuel types. Also, Miller and Schlegel (2006, p. 6) suggest that Santa 
Ana conditions (characterized by hot dry winds and low humidity) may 
significantly increase during fire season under global climate change 
scenarios. Small escaped fires have the potential to turn into large 
fires due to wind, weather conditions of temperature and humidity, lack 
of prescribed fires to control fuels, invasive vegetation, and 
inadequate wildfire control/prevention. For example, the October 2007 
Harris fire in San Diego County burned 20,000 acres (ac) (8,094 
hectares (ha)) within 4 hours of ignition (California Department of 
Forestry 2008, p. 57). Another fire near Orange, California, turned 
into a large size-class fire in less than 12 hours, and an unattended 
campfire set off the June 2007 Angora fire near Lake Tahoe in northern 
California, which spread 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) in its first 3 hours, 
and burned over 3,000 ac (1,214 ha) (USDA 2007, p. 1).
    A narrow endemic such as Monardella viminea could be especially 
sensitive to megafire events. One large fire could impact all or a 
large proportion of the entire area where the species is found, as 
occurred in the 2003 Cedar Fire, where 98 percent of occurrences on 
MCAS Miramar and M. viminea clumps in the privately owned portions of 
Sycamore Canyon burned. However, despite the overlap of the Cedar Fire 
with M. viminea occurrences on MCAS Miramar, the decline of the burned 
occurrences of M. viminea was not as severe as initially expected, as 
plants were later able to resprout from the root. Additionally, new 
juveniles and seedlings documented by the 2009 survey occurred 
primarily on lands burned by the 2003 Cedar Fire (Tierra Data 2011, p. 
16).
    Given the increased frequency of megafires within Southern 
California ecosystems, and the inability of regulatory mechanisms to 
prevent or control megafire, we find that megafire does have the 
potential to impact occurrences of Monardella viminea. However, given 
M. viminea's persistence through past fires and its ability to recover 
from direct impact by fires, we do not find that megafire is a 
significant threat to individual M. viminea plants now, nor is likely 
to become a significant threat in the foreseeable future. However, as 
noted in the Factor A discussion above, we do find that type conversion 
due to altered fire regime and megafire are threats to the habitat that 
supports M. viminea.
Climate Change
    A broad consensus exists among scientists that the earth is in a 
warming trend caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as carbon 
dioxide (IPCC 2007). Researchers have documented climate-related 
changes in California (Croke et al. 1998, pp. 2128, 2130; Breshears et 
al. 2005, p. 15144). Predictions for California indicate prolonged 
drought and other climate-related changes will continue in the future 
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 8-10; Lenihen et al. 2003, p. 1667; Hayhoe et 
al. 2004, p. 12422; Breshears et al. 2005, p. 15144; Seager et al. 
2007, p. 1181; IPCC 2007, p. 9). Models are not yet powerful enough to 
predict what will happen in localized regions, such as southern 
California, but many scientists believe warmer, wetter winters and 
warmer, drier summers will occur within the next century (Field et al. 
1999, pp. 2-3, 20). The impacts on

[[Page 33892]]

species like Monardella viminea, which depend on specific hydrological 
regimes, may be more severe (Graham 1997, p. 2).
    Since approximately the time of listing in 1998, an extended 
drought in the region (San Diego County Water Authority 2010, p. 2) 
created unusually dry habitat conditions. From 2000 to 2009, at one of 
the closer precipitation gauges to the species' range (Lake Cuyamaca, 
San Diego County, California), 8 of 10 years had precipitation 
significantly below normal (San Diego County Water Authority 2010, p. 
2). This extended drought has cumulatively affected moisture regimes, 
riparian habitat, and vegetative conditions in and around suitable 
habitat for Monardella viminea, and thus increased the stress on 
individual plants. As stated above, predictions indicate that future 
climate change may lead to similar, if not more severe, drought 
conditions.
    The predicted future drought could impact the dynamic of the 
streambeds where Monardella viminea grows. Soil moisture and 
transportation of sediments by downstream flow have been identified as 
key habitat features required by M. viminea. The species is 
characterized as being associated with areas of standing water after 
rainfall (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 426). Monitors for the City of San 
Diego have observed decreased plant health and increased dormancy of 
Monardella species in years with low rainfall (City of San Diego 2003, 
p. 3; City of San Diego 2004, p. 3). Specific analyses of population 
trends as correlated to rainfall are difficult due to inconsistent 
plant count methods (City of San Diego 2004, p. 67).
    Additionally, drier conditions may result in increased fire 
frequency. As discussed under Factors A and E, this could make the 
ecosystems in which Monardella viminea currently grows more vulnerable 
to the threats of subsequent erosion and invasive species. In a 
changing climate, conditions could change in a way that would allow 
both native and nonnative plants to invade the habitat where M. viminea 
currently occurs (Graham 1997, p. 10).
    While we recognize that climate change and increased drought 
associated with climate change are important issues with potential 
effects to listed species and their habitats, the best available 
scientific information does not currently give evidence specific enough 
for us to formulate accurate predictions regarding its effects to 
particular species, including Monardella viminea. Therefore, we do not 
consider global climate change a current threat to M. viminea, now or 
in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
    Based on a review of the best available scientific and commercial 
data regarding trampling, nonnative plant species, megafire, climate 
change, and small population size and restricted range, we found that 
nonnative plant species pose a significant threat to Monardella 
viminea. Additionally, the small population size and restricted range 
of M. viminea could exacerbate threats to the species. We found no 
other evidence that trampling or other natural or manmade factors pose 
a significant threat to M. viminea, either now or in the foreseeable 
future. We conclude based on the best available scientific information 
that M. viminea could be affected by fire impacts associated with the 
death of individual plants; however, we do not consider this a 
significant threat to the continued existence of the species. Finally 
with regard to the direct and indirect effects of climate change on 
individual M. viminea plants and its habitat, we have no information at 
this point to demonstrate that predicted climate changes poses a 
significant threat to the species either now or in the foreseeable 
future.

Proposed Determination--Monardella viminea

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to Monardella viminea. As described above, we find that threats 
attributable to Factor A (The Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range) represent 
significant threats to M. viminea, particularly through severe 
alteration of hydrology in Carroll, Lopez, and San Clemente Canyons. 
Additionally, type conversion and habitat degradation due to frequent 
fire represent a significant and immediate threat to the species across 
its range. We also find that, in the absence of the Act, other existing 
regulatory mechanisms as described under Factor D would not provide 
protections adequate to alleviate threats to M. viminea. Finally, we 
find that threats attributable to Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade 
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence) represent significant 
threats to the species throughout its range, including impacts from 
nonnative plant species invading canyons where M. viminea exists. 
Additionally, the small population size of M. viminea could exacerbate 
the threats to the species. Furthermore, the synergistic effects of 
flood, reduced shrub numbers, frequent fire, and nonnative species 
encroachment pose an increased risk to the species, resulting in 
continued population decline such as that seen on MCAS Miramar in 
recent years.
    When the species was listed in 1998, there were 18 extant 
occurrences of what we now consider to be Monardella viminea; 
currently, there are only 7 known natural occurrences of M. viminea. 
All seven of these occurrences have continued to decline since listing 
and since the most recent (2008) 5-year review. Since the recent 
taxonomic revision of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea into two 
separate species, we now know that both the number of clumps and the 
limited geographic range of M. viminea are substantially less than 
originally thought, as two of the occurrences at time of listing are 
now considered to be M. stoneana. As discussed above, natural 
occurrences of M. viminea occur in only six watersheds in a very 
limited area of San Diego County. Transplanted occurrences occur in two 
additional canyons; however, over the past 3 years, survival of three 
of the transplanted sites is below 20 percent, with the fourth at only 
44 percent (Ince 2010, p. 8). Additionally, the most recent surveys 
from MCAS Miramar, which holds the majority of the largest occurrences, 
have shown a rapid decline of the species over the past 7 years (Tierra 
Data 2011, p. 12).
    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' Given the rapid population decline 
(particularly the decline of 45 percent of the population on MCAS 
Miramar since 2002), the species' limited range and small population 
size, and continuing significant threats, we find that Monardella 
viminea is in danger of extinction throughout its range. Therefore, 
endangered status under the Act continues to be warranted for M. 
viminea.

Status Review--Monardella stoneana

Species Description

    Monardella stoneana is a perennial herb or subshrub in the 
Lamiaceae (mint family) with a woody base and aromatic leaves. The 
sparsely pubescent multiple stems bear sparsely gland-dotted broadly 
lanceolate to lance-ovate leaves, and dense, terminal clusters of pale

[[Page 33893]]

pink flowers. The leaves are 0.6-1.2 in (15-30 mm) long by 0.2-0.4 in 
(4-10 mm) wide, and the middle flower bracts are 0.3-0.4 in (7-10 mm) 
long (Elvin and Sanders 2003, pp. 426, 431-432). Monardella stoneana 
often grows together in clumps of one to four individual plants. As the 
number of plants within a clump cannot be reliably distinguished 
without exposing the roots, the species is usually counted by clumps 
rather than as individual plants.

Habitat

    Monardella stoneana occurs in cypress forest and chaparral habitats 
on banks of ephemeral washes in canyons where surface water flows for 
usually less than 48 hours after a rain event (Elvin and Sanders 2003, 
p. 430; SANDAG 1995). It is often found with Baccharis sarothroides 
(broom baccharis) and Cupressus (cypress) species (CNDDB 2010b). It is 
most commonly found in canyon bottoms and north-facing slopes, and 
along bends of meandering drainages (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 426). 
Many of the streams where M. stoneana grows hold water for up to 
several months during the rainy season (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 
426). Monardella stoneana is found on rockier substrate than M. 
viminea, often between spaces in stones or boulders along the creek bed 
(Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 426; City of San Diego 2005, p. 3; City of 
San Diego 2008, p. 4).
    The chaparral habitat that Monardella stoneana favors benefits from 
small or managed fires that clear out dead or encroaching scrub 
vegetation and reduce nonnative species (Minnich 1983, p. 1290). 
Chaparral is more resistant to fire than coastal sage scrub, due to 
strong recruitment and effective germination after repeated fire events 
(Keeley 1987, p. 439; Tyler 1995, p. 1009). As with M. viminea, there 
are two ways in which fire can negatively impact M. stoneana. First, an 
increased frequency of fires of all sizes can result in type conversion 
or invasion of nonnative grasses into chaparral habitats that can choke 
out native vegetation, including shrubs associated with M. stoneana. 
This is a habitat-based effect. Second, large or unmanaged fires 
(megafire) can be a particular threat to a narrow endemic species like 
M. stoneana because a single megafire could eliminate a large 
proportion of individual plants within the extant range of the species. 
Rebman and Dossey (2006b, p. 2) reported that M. viminea is capable of 
resprouting after fire; we expect the same to be true of M. stoneana. 
Additional information is needed on the role of fire in M. stoneana 
habitat, particularly within riparian portions of canyons, and the 
effects of fire on clumps of M. stoneana. Please see our request for 
information in the Public Comments section above.

Life History

    Very little is known about the germination and establishment of 
Monardella stoneana. Mature plants of the closely related M. viminea 
flower readily, with inflorescences persisting for 10 to 12 weeks 
(Elvin and Sanders 2003, pp. 430-431). Plants are short-lived 
perennials producing a new cohort of aerial stems each year from a 
persisting perennial root structure. Plants of this species are not 
known to be rhizomatous; however, root masses may become separated over 
time, resulting in adjacent genetically identical but separate plants.
    No pollination studies are known to exist for Monardella stoneana; 
however, other Monardella taxa are visited by butterfly and bee species 
(Elvin 2003, p. 2). Bees collected from the closely related M. linoides 
include wasp-like bees (Hylaeus sp.), mason bees (Osmia spp. or 
Chalicodoma spp.), and miner bees (Anthophora spp.) (Hurd 1979, pp. 
1762, 1765, 2042, 2073, and 2164). Successful reproduction of flowering 
plants depends on pollinator abundance and effectiveness (Javorek et 
al. 2002, p. 350). Therefore, pollinator movement and availability 
should be considered when assessing likely population distributions and 
survival, and habitat needs of M. stoneana.

Geographic Range and Status

    Monardella stoneana is a geographically narrow endemic restricted 
to southwestern San Diego County, in the United States, and to northern 
portions of Baja California, Mexico (Figure 1). All eight extant 
occurrences and one extirpated occurrence (Table 1) are found in the 
vicinity of Otay Mesa, Otay Mountain, and Tecate Peak (CNDDB 2010b). 
Monardella stoneana occurs on lands owned by the BLM, the City of San 
Diego, the State of California, the CDFG, and lands under private 
ownership. The use of the word occurrence, as described in the 
Geographic Range and Status section for M. viminea, also applies to M. 
stoneana.
    A total of two occurrences now considered Monardella stoneana were 
known and extant at the time of listing (63 FR 54938; October 13, 
1998). According to the most recent report from the CNDDB, eight 
occurrences of M. stoneana are currently extant, with additional clumps 
easily visible in Mexico just across the border from California (CNDDB 
2010b, EOs 7, 8). Due to the rarity of juveniles of this species and 
the closely related M. viminea, and the fact that most occurrences were 
discovered less than 5 years after listing, we believe all occurrences 
were extant at the time of listing.
    There is little information available on the population trends of 
most Monardella stoneana occurrences since listing. Only two EOs 
receive regular monitoring, EO 1 (Marron Valley) and EO 5 (Buschalaugh 
Cove). The Buschalaugh Cove occurrence, located on land owned by the 
City of San Diego, declined from two clumps in 2004 to one clump in 
2006, and then no clumps in 2008 (City of San Diego 2004, p. 3; City of 
San Diego 2006, p. 8; City of San Diego 2008, p. 2). The last remaining 
clump at this occurrence was burned as a result of the 2007 Harris Fire 
and has not been located by monitors since that time (City of San Diego 
2008, p. 2; City of San Diego 2009, p. 2; City of San Diego 2010, p. 
256). The Marron Valley occurrence, also located on land owned by the 
City of San Diego, appears to have declined slightly from 120 
individuals in 2002, to 95 in 2010 (City of San Diego 2010a, p. 238; 
City of San Diego 2010b, p. 2). However, the City of San Diego 
acknowledges that its monitoring methods are not always consistent 
across years (City of San Diego 2005, pp. 2-3), so the differences 
could be an artifact of inconsistencies in monitoring. Since 2005, the 
population has remained steady at 95 plants (City of San Diego 2010b, 
p. 2).
    Little information is available on the other occurrences. Reports 
from the CNDDB state that the Otay Lakes occurrence declined from 200 
clumps in 1989, to 25 plants in 2005 (EO 4; CNDDB 2010b, p. 4); these 
are the only two surveys we are aware of for this occurrence. According 
to the CNDDB, all other occurrences are still extant (CNDDB 2010b). No 
surveys have been conducted in Mexico; the only known occurrences in 
Mexico are those visible across the border, as discussed above.

Summary of Factors Affecting Monardella stoneana

    As stated above in the Summary of Factors Affecting Monardella 
viminea section, the original listing rule for the M. linoides ssp. 
viminea contained a discussion of these five factors, as did the 2008 
5-year review. However, the reader must bear in mind that both of these 
documents included discussions regarding M. linoides ssp. viminea, 
without separation, or recognition of M. stoneana or M. viminea. Below, 
each of

[[Page 33894]]

the five listing factors is discussed for M. stoneana specifically.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

Urbanization/Development
    The original listing rule identified urban development as one of 
the most important threats to Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 
54938; October 13, 1998). However, the urbanization and development 
threats described in the 1998 listing rule apply only to those 
occurrences now attributable to M. viminea.
    Monardella stoneana occurs almost entirely on publicly owned land 
managed by the BLM (approximately 34 percent), CDFG (approximately 55 
percent), or City of San Diego (approximately 7 percent). These 
occurrences are protected from habitat destruction or modification due 
to urban development because they are conserved and managed within the 
BLM's Otay Mountain Wilderness or the City of San Diego's and CDFG's 
preserves under the MSCP; this contrasts with M. viminea occurrences 
conserved by the City of San Diego that do not have management plans 
(see also Factor D discussion below and Factor D discussion for M. 
viminea).
    The Monardella stoneana occurrences located on the two sections of 
land owned by the City of San Diego have been set aside for 
conservation purposes and are undevelopable. The one occurrence located 
on private land at the Otay Lakes site is contained within lands set 
aside as part of the Otay Ranch Preserve, and thus protected from 
development. Based on the lack of threats from development on land 
currently occupied by M. stoneana, we do not believe that urban 
development is a threat to this species now, nor will it be in the 
foreseeable future, within the United States. While we are not aware of 
any proposed development in areas occupied by M. stoneana in Mexico, we 
are also not aware of the extent of the species' distribution in 
Mexico. Thus, the best scientific evidence does not support 
urbanization as a significant threat to M. stoneana in Mexico.
Sand and Gravel Mining
    Sand and gravel mining activities were identified as threats to 
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea in the 1998 listing rule and the 
recent 5-year review (63 FR 54938, October 13, 1998; Service 2008). As 
was the case for urban development, the threats described in the 1998 
listing rule apply only to those occurrences now attributable to M. 
viminea. We are not aware of any historical mining that has impacted 
occurrences of M. stoneana, nor are we aware of any plans for future 
mining activities that may impact the species. Therefore, we believe 
that sand and gravel mining activities do not pose a threat to the 
continued persistence of M. stoneana.
Altered Hydrology
    The original listing rule identified altered hydrology as a threat 
to Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). 
Monardella viminea depends on a natural hydrological system to maintain 
the secondary alluvial benches and streambeds on which it grows (Scheid 
1985, pp. 30-31, 34-35); we believe the closely related M. stoneana 
does as well. Upstream development can disrupt this regime by 
increasing storm runoff, which can result in erosion of stream banks 
and rocky cobble upon which M. stoneana grow. Floods also have the 
potential to wash away plants much larger than M. stoneana, as has 
occurred with M. viminea in Lopez Canyon (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, 
pp. 2-3). On the other hand, decreased flows increase the possibility 
of invasion by nonnative species into the creek bed, which can smother 
seedling and mature plants and disrupt growth processes (Rebman and 
Dossey 2006a, p. 12).
    Habitat characteristics for Monardella stoneana have not been 
described in detail, but, as with M. viminea, alteration of hydrology 
may disrupt the natural processes and habitat characteristics that 
support M. stoneana. However, M. stoneana reportedly ``most often grows 
among boulders, stones, and in cracks of the bedrock of these 
intermittent streams in rocky gorges'' (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 
429), which suggests the habitat of M. stoneana may be largely 
resistant to erosion events. More importantly, given the lack of urban 
development in the Otay area where the majority of the plants occur, 
substantial alteration of hydrology has not occurred to date and is not 
expected to occur in the foreseeable future, and is thus not a threat 
to M. stoneana.
Fire and Type Conversion
    As discussed under Factor A for Monardella viminea, our 
understanding of the role of fire in fire-dependent habitat has changed 
since the time of listing, and the intensity of wildfire and frequency 
of megafires has increased compared to historical regimes. However, M. 
stoneana is associated with different habitat types than M. viminea. 
While M. viminea occurs in coastal sage scrub and riparian scrub, M. 
stoneana is found primarily in chaparral habitats.
    Chaparral is more resistant to fire than coastal sage scrub, due to 
strong recruitment and effective germination after repeated fire events 
(Keeley 1987, p. 439; Tyler 1995, p. 1009). Chaparral is considered a 
crown-fire ecosystem, meaning ecosystems which ``have endogenous 
mechanisms for recovery that include resprouting from basal burrs and 
long-lived seed banks that are stimulated to germinate by fire'' (Keane 
et al. 2008, p. 702). These ecosystems are also resilient to high-
intensity burns (Keeley et al. 2008, p. 1545).
    The fire regime in Baja California, Mexico, where some Monardella 
stoneana occurs, has not undergone the same fire suppression activities 
that have occurred in the United States. Some researchers claim that 
the fire regime of chaparral growing in Baja California is thus not 
affected by megafires due to a lack of fire suppression activities 
(Minnich and Chou 1997, Minnich 2001). Nevertheless, Keeley and Zedler 
(2009, p. 86) believe that the fire regime in Baja California still 
mirrors that of Southern California, similarly consisting of ``small 
fires punctuated at periodic intervals by large fire events'' 
Therefore, we expect that impacts from fire in Baja California will be 
similar to that in San Diego County.
    Despite the resiliency of chaparral ecosystems to fire events, 
chaparral, like coastal sage scrub, has been experiencing type 
conversion in many areas in southern California. As with coastal sage 
scrub, chaparral habitat is also being invaded by nonnative species 
(Keeley 2006, p. 379). Nonnative grasses sprout more quickly after a 
fire than chaparral species; this process is exacerbated by increased 
fire intervals (Keeley 2001, pp. 84-85).
    However, monitoring data from the MSCP Rare Plant Field Surveys by 
the City of San Diego indicate that type conversion is not taking place 
in chaparral habitats surrounding occurrences of Monardella stoneana. 
For the past decade, the City of San Diego has been monitoring the 
occurrences of M. stoneana on City lands, documenting their general 
habitats and assessing disturbances and threats. In the City of San 
Diego 2006 report, the Otay Lakes occurrence of M. stoneana (one clump 
comprised of two individuals) was reported as having ``fair to good'' 
habitat, with monitors noting that threats occurred, such as 
encroachment of tamarisk (Tamarisk spp.) and other nonnative plants (10 
percent cover), and immigrant trails

[[Page 33895]]

(City of San Diego 2006, p. 8). This occurrence was lost after the 2006 
survey, as described in the Geographic Range and Status section of this 
proposed rule. Although the 2008 and 2010 survey reports for the Otay 
Lakes site describe habitat disturbances such as type conversion due to 
fire frequency and invasive species (particularly nonnative grasses) 
(City of San Diego 2008, p. 2; City of San Diego 2010, p. 5), the 
surveys also indicate that the percent cover of native species has 
increased from 2008 to 2010 (from 23 to 42 percent), while the percent 
cover of nonnative species has increased (from 30 to 44 percent) (City 
of San Diego 2008, p. 1; City of San Diego 2010; p. 5). The most recent 
survey report (2010) described the habitat at this site as ``fair to 
good'' (City of San Diego 2010, p. 254).
    For the Marron Valley site, the MSCP Rare Plant Field Surveys 
conducted by the City of San Diego recorded 95 individuals of 
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (now M. stoneana) in its 2006 survey 
report, which was unchanged in survey results from 2008 to 2010 (City 
of San Diego 2006, p. 1; City of San Diego 2008, p. 1; City of San 
Diego 2009, p.1; City of San Diego, p. 5). Habitat at the Marron Valley 
site was characterized as ``fair to good'' for 2008 through 2010 (City 
of San Diego 2008, p. 2; City of San Diego 2010, p. 11). As with the 
Otay Lakes location, type conversion due to frequent fire (Factor A) 
and invasion of nonnative grasses was described as a disturbance/
stressor to the M. stoneana habitat (City of San Diego 2008, p. 2; City 
of San Diego 2009, p. 2). Nonetheless, recent surveys indicate that the 
percent ground cover by native species at the Marron Valley site (EO 1) 
has increased from 2008 to 2010 (from 26 to 32 percent), while the 
percent ground cover by nonnative species has also increased (from 15 
to 22 percent) (City of San Diego 2008, p. 1; City of San Diego 2010; 
p. 5). While no habitat assessment surveys are available for other M. 
stoneana occurrences on Otay Mountain or near Tecate Peak, we would 
expect the results to be similar to those from the Marron Valley and 
Otay Lakes occurrences, as they occur in the same or similar habitat 
types (SANDAG 1995).
    Zedler et al. (1983, p. 816) concluded that short-interval fires on 
Otay Mountain will lead to an increase in herbs and subshrubs given 
their observation that the ``common pattern after chaparral fires, like 
that of 1979 [on Otay Mountain], is for native and introduced annual 
herbs to dominate for the 1st yr and then gradually decline as the 
cover of shrub and subshrubs inceases [sic].'' Additionally, monitoring 
data for Monardella stoneana has not recorded the same rapid increases 
in nonnative vegetation as have occurred in habitat where M. viminea 
grows (City of San Diego 2008, p. 1; City of San Diego 2009; p. 1). 
While several M. viminea occurrences have been extirpated due to 
invasion of nonnative vegetation (see Factor A discussion for M. 
viminea above), no occurrences of M. stoneana have been similarly 
affected.
    Nonetheless, fire is still a stressor to Monardella stoneana 
habitat and many other sensitive habitats throughout southern 
California. To this end, on land owned and managed by the CDFG and BLM, 
which contain approximately 88 percent of all occurrences of M. 
stoneana, fire management is provided by CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE is an 
emergency response and resource protection department. The CAL FIRE 
protects lives, property, and natural resources from fire, and it 
protects and preserves timberlands, wildlands, and urban forests. The 
CAL FIRES's varied programs work together to plan protection strategies 
incorporating concepts of the National Fire Plan, the California Fire 
Plan, individual CAL FIRE Unit Fire Plans, and Community Wildfire 
Protection Plans (CWPPs). Fire Plans outline the fire situation within 
each CAL FIRE Unit, and CWPPs do the same for communities (CAL FIRE 
2011a, p. 1; County of San Diego 2011a). Each plan identifies 
prevention measures to reduce risks, informs and involves the local 
communities in the area, and provides a framework to diminish potential 
wildfire losses and implement all applicable fire management 
regulations and policies (CAL FIRE 2011b; County of San Diego 2011a). 
Planning includes other State, Federal, and local government agencies 
as well as Fire Safe Councils (CAL FIRE 2011a, p. 1). Cooperative 
efforts via contracts and agreements between State, Federal, and local 
agencies are essential to respond to wildland fires (CAL FIRE 2011a, p. 
1). Because of these types of cooperative efforts, fire engines and 
crews from many different agencies may respond at the scene of an 
emergency (CAL FIRE 2011a, p. 1); however, CAL FIRE typically takes the 
lead with regard to planning for megafire prevention, management, and 
suppression, and CAL FIRE is in charge of incident command during a 
wildfire.
    The San Diego County Fire Authority (SDCFA), local governments, and 
CAL FIRE cooperatively protect 1.42 million ac (0.6 million ha) of land 
with 54 fire stations throughout San Diego County (County of San Diego 
2011b, p. 1). Wildfire management plans and associated actions can help 
to reduce the impacts of type conversion due to frequent fire on 
natural resources, including M. stoneana.
    Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information, type conversion due to more frequent fire does not pose a 
threat to M. stoneana or its associated plant communities now or in the 
foreseeable future. The stress of frequent fire on M. stoneana is 
further alleviated by management actions undertaken by CAL FIRE. More 
intense fire, however, could pose a threat to individual clumps of M. 
stoneana; impacts to clumps of M. stoneana from intense fire events are 
discussed below under Factor E.
Summary of Factor A
    We evaluated several factors with the potential to destroy, modify, 
or curtail Monardella stoneana's habitat or range, including urban 
development, sand and gravel mining, type conversion due to frequent 
fire, and altered hydrology. Based on our review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we conclude that M. stoneana is 
not threatened by the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range, either now or in the 
foreseeable future.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    To our knowledge, no commercial use exists for Monardella stoneana. 
The 1998 listing rule for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea suggested 
that professional and private botanical collecting could exacerbate the 
extirpation threat to the subspecies due to botanists favoring rare or 
declining species (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). However, we are not 
currently aware of any interest by botanists in collecting M. stoneana. 
Therefore, we do not believe that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes constitutes a threat 
to this species, either now or in the foreseeable future.

C. Disease or Predation

    Neither disease nor predation was known to be a threat affecting 
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998) at the 
time of listing. Data from the CNDDB (CNDDB 2010b) list grazing as a 
potential threat for the M. stoneana occurrence located on the Otay 
Ranch Preserve (EO 4). However, we have no other information 
quantifying the extent of this grazing and its impact on this 
occurrence. Therefore, based on the best available

[[Page 33896]]

scientific and commercial information, neither disease nor herbivory 
constitutes a threat to M. stoneana, either now or in the foreseeable 
future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    At the time of listing, regulatory mechanisms identified as 
providing some level of protection for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea 
included: (1) The Act in cases where M. linoides ssp. viminea co-
occurred with a Federally listed species; (2) California Endangered 
Species Act (CESA), as the species was listed as endangered in 
California in 1979; (3) the California Environmental Quality Act 
(CEQA); (4) implementation of conservation plans pursuant to 
California's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act; (5) local 
laws and regulations; and (6) enforcement of Mexican laws (63 FR 54938; 
October 13, 1998). The listing rule provided an analysis of the 
potential level of protection provided by these regulatory mechanisms 
(63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). With the proposed separation of M. 
viminea from M. stoneana, we have re-evaluated current protective 
regulatory mechanisms for M. stoneana, as discussed below. However, as 
with M. viminea, protections afforded to M. stoneana under the Act as 
part of M. linoides ssp. viminea, the currently listed entity, would 
continue to apply only if we determine to retain listed status for M. 
stoneana. Therefore, for purposes of our analysis, we do not include 
the Act as an existing regulatory mechanism that protects M. stoneana. 
We do note that M. stoneana would likely continue to receive protection 
indirectly through habitat conservation plans approved under section 10 
of the Act and Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) approved 
under the State of California that will cover M. stoneana even if the 
species is not Federally listed.
Federal Regulations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 for projects they fund, 
authorize, or carry out. The Council on Environmental Quality's 
regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1518) state that in 
their environmental impact statements agencies shall include a 
discussion on the environmental impacts of the various project 
alternatives (including the proposed action), any adverse environmental 
effects which cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or irretrievable 
commitments of resources involved (40 CFR 1502). NEPA itself is a 
disclosure law that provides an opportunity for the public to submit 
comments on a particular project and propose other conservation 
measures that may directly benefit listed species; however, it does not 
impose substantive environmental mitigation obligations on Federal 
agencies. Any such measures are typically voluntary in nature and are 
not required by the statute. Activities on non-Federal lands are also 
subject to NEPA if there is a Federal nexus.
Wilderness Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act
    Monardella stoneana is a BLM-designated sensitive species (BLM 
2010, p. 8). BLM-designated sensitive species are those species 
requiring special management consideration to promote their 
conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing 
under the Act. This status makes conservation of M. stoneana a 
management priority in the Otay Mountain Wilderness, in which 
approximately 34 percent of M. stoneana occurs.
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) governs the management of public lands under the 
jurisdiction of the BLM. The legislative goals of FLPMA are to 
establish public land policy; to establish guidelines for its [BLM's] 
administration; and to provide for the management, protection, 
development, and enhancement of the public lands. While FLPMA generally 
directs that public lands be managed on the basis of multiple use, the 
statute also directs that such lands be managed to ``protect the 
quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, 
air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; * * * [ 
to] preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural 
condition; [and to] * * * provide food and habitat for fish and 
wildlife * * * .'' (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8)). Although the BLM has a 
multiple-use mandate under the FLPMA which allows for grazing, mining, 
and off-road vehicle use, the BLM also has the ability under the FLPMA 
to establish and implement special management areas such as Areas of 
Critical Environmental Concern, wilderness areas, research areas, and 
so forth. BLM's South Coast Resource Management Plan covers the San 
Diego County area.
    The Otay Mountain Wilderness Act (1999) (Pub. L. 106-145) and BLM 
management policies provide protection for all Monardella stoneana 
occurring within the Otay Mountain Wilderness. The Otay Mountain 
Wilderness Act provides that the Otay Mountain designated wilderness 
area (i.e., Otay Mountain Wilderness; 18,500 ac (7,486 ha)) will be 
managed in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964 
(16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). The Wilderness Act of 1964 strictly limits 
the use of wilderness areas, imposing restrictions on vehicle use, new 
developments, chainsaws, mountain bikes, leasing, and mining, in order 
to protect the natural habitats of the areas, maintain species 
diversity, and enhance biological values. Lands acquired by BLM within 
the Otay Mountain Wilderness boundaries become part of the designated 
wilderness area and are managed in accordance with all provisions of 
the Wilderness Act and regulations pertaining to the Wilderness Act.
    The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Service, the BLM, 
the County of San Diego, the City of San Diego, SANDAG, and the CDFG, 
was issued in 1994 in conjunction with the development of the County of 
San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP for cooperation in habitat 
conservation planning and management (BLM 1994, pp. 1-8), and applies 
to the Otay Mountain Wilderness because it falls entirely within the 
boundary of this subarea plan. The MOU (BLM 1994, p. 3) details BLM's 
commitment to manage lands to ``conform with'' the County of San Diego 
Subarea Plan, which in turn requires protection of M. stoneana (see 
Habitat Conservation Plans section below). Additionally, pursuant to 
the MOU, private lands acquired by BLM will be evaluated for inclusion 
within the designated wilderness area, and if the lands do not meet 
wilderness qualifications, these lands would be included in the MSCP 
conservation system (BLM 1994, p. 3). Therefore, protections provided 
by the County of San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP (see Habitat 
Conservation Plans section below) also apply to the Otay Mountain 
Wilderness.
    Protections for Monardella stoneana are also included in the BLM's 
draft of the South Coast Resource Management Plan (SCRMP). Fire 
management activities occur on Otay Mountain as part of the BLM's 
current (1994) South Coast Resource Management Plan. In addition, at 
some point in the future on an as-needed basis, additional brush 
clearing and other fuels modifications, including burning, may occur.
    The BLM is collaborating with the Service to revise the South Coast 
Resource Management Plan, which covers the Otay Mountain Wilderness.

[[Page 33897]]

The draft revised plan specifically includes a goal of restoring fire 
frequency to 50 years through fire prevention or suppression and 
prescribed burns; once an area has not burned for 50 years, the plan 
allows for annual prescribed burning of up to 500 ac (200 ha) in the 
Otay Mountain Wilderness (BLM 2010, pp. 4-171--4-172). We believe the 
management regime undertaken by BLM under the SCRMP is adequate to 
protect the species and its habitat from the threat of type conversion 
due to frequent fire (Factor A).
State and Local Regulations
Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) and California Endangered Species 
Act (CESA)
    Under provisions of NPPA (Division 2, chapter 10 section 1900 et 
seq. of the CFG code) and CESA (Division 3, chapter 1.5, section 2050 
et seq. of the CFG code), the CDFG Commission listed Monardella 
linoides ssp. viminea as endangered in 1979. Currently, the State of 
California recognizes the State-listed entity as M. viminea. No such 
recognition is afforded M. stoneana under CESA. Though not listed under 
CESA, the CDFG does recognize M. stoneana as a rare and imperiled plant 
(lists S1.2 and 1B.2).
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
    The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources 
Code 21000-21177) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of 
Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387) 
requires State and local agencies to identify the significant 
environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those 
impacts, if feasible. CEQA applies to projects proposed to be 
undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government 
agencies, and the lead agency must complete the environmental review 
process required by CEQA, including conducting an Initial Study to 
identify the environmental impacts of the project and determine whether 
the identified impacts are significant; if significant impacts are 
determined, then an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared to 
provide State and local agencies and the general public with detailed 
information on the potentially significant environmental effects 
(California Environmental Resources Evaluation System, 2010). 
``Thresholds of Significance'' are comprehensive criteria used to 
define environmentally significant impacts based on quantitative and 
qualitative standards and include impacts to biological resources such 
as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional 
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or the Service; or any 
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in 
local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or 
Service (CEQA Handbook, Appendix G, 2010). Defining these significance 
thresholds helps ensure a ``rational basis for significance 
determinations'' and provides support for the final determination and 
appropriate revisions or mitigation actions to a project in order to 
develop a mitigated negative declaration rather than an Environmental 
Impact Report (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 1994, p. 5). 
Under CEQA, projects may move forward if there is a statement of 
overriding consideration. If significant effects are identified, the 
lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation through changes in 
the project or to decide that overriding considerations make mitigation 
infeasible (CEQA section 21002). Protection of listed species through 
CEQA is, therefore, dependent upon the discretion of the lead agency 
involved.
Otay Mountain Ecological Reserve
    Fifty-five percent of Monardella stoneana occurrences are found on 
the Otay Mountain Ecological Reserve, which is owned by the State of 
California and managed by CDFG. The Reserve is managed in a manner 
consistent with protections applying to the Otay Mountain Wilderness 
Area (T. Nelson 2011, pers. comm.). In the case of Otay Mountain 
Ecological Reserve, those measures include protection from development, 
watershed alteration, and fire management. Fire management prevents 
stress on M. stoneana habitat due to type conversion caused by too 
frequent fires (Factor A).
The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act
    The NCCP program is a cooperative effort between the State of 
California and numerous private and public partners with the goal of 
protecting habitats and species. An NCCP identifies and provides for 
the regional or area-wide protection of plants, animals, and their 
habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. 
The program began in 1991 under the State's NCCP Act (CFG Code 2800-
2835). The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural 
communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land 
uses (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/). Regional NCCPs provide 
protection to Federally listed species by conserving native habitats 
upon which the species depend. Many NCCPs are developed in conjunction 
with HCPs prepared pursuant to the Act. The City and County of San 
Diego Subarea Plans under the MSCP are discussed below under the 
discussion of the Act.
San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP)
    Monardella linoides ssp. viminea is a covered species under the San 
Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) (City of San Diego 
1997, Table 3-5). The most recent revision of the Rare Plant Monitoring 
Review lists M. stoneana as a covered species and recognized narrow 
endemic (McEachern et al. 2007, p. 33). The MSCP is a regional 
conservation plan covering 582,000 acres in southwestern San Diego 
County and is designed to protect sensitive species and habitats within 
the boundaries of the plan. The MSCP covers 582,243 ac (235,625 ha) and 
12 jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction is responsible for developing its 
own subarea plan to implement the regional MSCP within that 
jurisdiction.
    Known occurrences of Monardella stoneana located within the City of 
San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP include the occurrence just east 
of Buschalaugh Cove on the lower Otay Reservoir (EO 5) and a portion of 
the occurrence in an unnamed tributary of Cottonwood Creek east of 
Marron Valley (EO 6). The City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan requires 
preservation of 100 percent of the occurrences on city-owned lands in 
the Otay area. City-owned lands represent a total of 7 percent of 
habitat for the species. Additional impact avoidance and other measures 
are required under the City's plan to protect narrow endemic species, 
such as M. stoneana, and the subarea plan includes area-specific 
management directives designed to maintain long-term survival in the 
planning area (Service 1997, pp. 104-105). Under the City of San Diego 
Subarea Plan, impacts to narrow endemic plants, including M. stoneana, 
inside the MHPA (Multi-Habitat Protection Area) will be avoided. 
Additionally, the City has completed a fire management plan for the 
Marron Valley area. This plan outlines as major goals the reduction of 
too-short fire return intervals. It also provides for protection of 
native plant community structure and biodiversity, including protection 
for M. stoneana and the canyon where it is found (EO 1) (Tierra Data 
2006, pp. 4-1-4-2).
    The County of San Diego Subarea Plan covers 252,132 ac (102,035 ha) 
in

[[Page 33898]]

the southwestern portion of the County's unincorporated lands, and is 
implemented in part by the Biological Mitigation Ordinance (BMO). As 
discussed in the Wilderness Act and Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act section above, protections provided by the County of San Diego 
Subarea Plan under the MSCP also apply to the Otay Mountain Wilderness, 
and thus are discussed here. The County of San Diego Subarea plan 
outlines the specific criteria and requirements for projects within the 
MSCP subarea plan's boundaries to alleviate threats from development 
and increased fire frequency (see MSCP, County of San Diego Subarea 
Plan (2007) and County of San Diego Biological Mitigation Ordinance 
(Ord. Nos. 8845, 9246) 1998). The BMO requires that all impacts to 
narrow endemic plant species, including Monardella stoneana, be avoided 
to the maximum extent practicable (City of San Diego 2007, p. 11). All 
projects within the County's MSCP subarea plan boundaries must comply 
with both the MSCP requirements and the County's policies under CEQA.
    The private land on Otay Mountain where Monardella stoneana is 
known to occur is part of Otay Ranch; this land is zoned as ``Open 
Space'' by the County of San Diego and identified as part of the County 
of San Diego's preserve for the MSCP. Only 4 percent of M. stoneana 
habitat occurs on private land. This land is also covered by the Otay 
Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (Otay Ranch 2002), approved by 
the County in 2002. This plan provides for the phased conservation and 
development of lands in southern San Diego County. A large portion of 
land is identified for conservation and will be dedicated as associated 
development occurs. The Otay Ranch Phase 2 Management Plan provides 
protection for 100 percent of M. stoneana occurring on the preserve 
(Otay Ranch 2002, p. 144) and includes provisions to manage the 4 
percent of M. stoneana habitat that is on private land in a way that 
will benefit this species (Otay Ranch 2002, pp. 18-19, 52-53).
    Additionally, the County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance 
(RPO) (County of San Diego 2007) applies to unincorporated lands in the 
County, both within and outside of the MSCP subarea plan boundaries. 
The RPO identifies restrictions on development to reduce or eliminate 
impacts to natural resources, including wetlands, wetland buffers, 
floodplains, steep slope lands, and sensitive habitat lands. Sensitive 
habitat lands are those that support unique vegetation communities or 
those that either are necessary to support a viable population of 
sensitive species (such as M. stoneana), are critical to the proper 
functioning of a balanced natural ecosystem, or serve as a functioning 
wildlife corridor (County of San Diego, 2007, p. 3). They can include 
areas that contain maritime succulent scrub, southern coastal bluff 
scrub, coastal and desert dunes, calcicolous scrub, and maritime 
chaparral, among others. Impacts to RPO sensitive habitat lands are 
only allowed when all feasible measures have been applied to reduce 
impacts and when mitigation provides an equal or greater benefit to the 
affected species (County of San Diego, 2007, p. 13).
Summary of Factor D
    On City and County lands occupied by Monardella stoneana or 
containing its habitat, we believe the County of San Diego Resource 
Protection Ordinance, the Biological Mitigation Ordinance, and the 
Subarea plans for the City and County of San Diego provide mechanisms 
to conserve M. stoneana in association with new development or other 
proposed projects, and they provide mechanisms for the creation of 
biological reserves. The County of San Diego subarea plan provides 
protective mechanisms for the small percentage of M. stoneana on 
private land for new development or other proposed projects, and 
includes provisions for monitoring and management through development 
of location-specific management plans. Unlike for habitat containing M. 
viminea, the City of San Diego has developed final monitoring and 
management plans for M. stoneana. Conservation measures addressing 
stressors from type conversion due to frequent fire are thus 
identified, and are being carried out at the Marron Valley occurrence, 
which is the only city-owned land where M. stoneana is extant. However, 
as only a small percentage of M. stoneana occurs on city-owned lands, 
these actions on their own, although providing a benefit to the one 
occurrence on city-owned land, are not enough to protect the species as 
a whole.
    On land owned and managed by the CDFG and BLM, which contain 
approximately 88 percent of all occurrences of Monardella stoneana, 
fire management is provided by CAL FIRE, and further protection of 
natural resources on state lands is provided by management conducted 
consistent with the Wilderness Act.
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we conclude M. stoneana is not threatened by inadequate 
existing regulatory mechanisms. Federal, State, and local regulatory 
mechanisms help to reduce wildfire impacts, primarily to property and 
human safety; they do not adequately protect M. stoneana from direct 
mortality caused by megafires. However, the impact of megafire on 
wildlands is not a threat that is susceptible to elimination by 
regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we do not find existing regulations 
inadequate to protect M. stoneana, now or in the foreseeable future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Trampling
    Trampling was identified as a threat to Monardella linoides ssp. 
viminea in the original listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). 
Trampling by pedestrians may result in damage or death to M. stoneana 
plants. The City of San Diego MSCP previously identified Off-Highway 
Vehicle (OHV) activity and disturbance from illegal immigrant activity 
as a major management issue (City of San Diego 1997, p. 52). All M. 
stoneana clusters occur in close proximity to the Mexico border, where 
historically many illegal immigrants cross on foot. Monitoring reports 
previously noted immigrant trails through M. stoneana habitat at the 
Otay Lakes location (City of San Diego 2006, p. 8). However, the recent 
border fence construction and other enforcement activities in the Otay 
Mountain Wilderness area have reduced illegal immigrant traffic (Ford 
2010, p. 1), and thus potential impacts of trampling at the Otay Lakes, 
Marron Valley, and Otay Mountain locations. So while there may be some 
impacts due to trampling to individual plants, it is unlikely to occur 
at levels that would affect the status of the species. Based on the 
best scientific information, we believe that trampling (human 
disturbance activities) does not pose a significant risk to the 
persistence of M. stoneana now or in the foreseeable future.
Nonnative Plant Species
    The listing rule identifies nonnative plants as a threat to 
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998). San 
Diego County habitats have been altered by invasion of nonnative 
species (Soule et al. 1992, p. 43). Nonnative grasses, which frequently 
grow more quickly than native species, can smother seedling and mature 
M. viminea and prevent natural growth (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 12). 
The same effect is likely for M. stoneana. Monitors for the City of San 
Diego MSCP recorded invasive plants at the Marron Valley location in 
the 2008 and

[[Page 33899]]

2009 survey reports (City of San Diego 2008, p. 2; City of San Diego 
2009, p. 1). At the Otay Lakes location, the invasive plant tamarisk 
was documented in 2006 (City of San Diego 2006, p. 8), and nonnative 
grasses were documented in 2008 and 2009 (City of San Diego 2008, p. 2; 
City of San Diego 2009, p. 2).
    However, despite the presence of nonnative plants in the range of 
Monardella stoneana, monitoring reports have not recorded the same 
level of invasion by nonnative grasses that has occurred in the 
vicinity of M. viminea. As discussed under Factor A, the percent ground 
cover of nonnative and native plant species has increased between 2008 
and 2010 at both Otay Lakes and Marron Valley. Additionally, the number 
of individual plants of M. stoneana at Marron Valley has not changed 
since 2006 (City of San Diego 2006, p. 1; City of San Diego 2008, p. 1; 
City of San Diego 2009, p. 1; City of San Diego 2010, p. 11). These 
observations are consistent with the observation of Minnich and Bahre 
(1995, p. 17) that generally, the ground cover of all herbaceous 
plants, including that of nonnative grasses, was absent or consisted of 
thinly scattered plants within the chaparral along the California-Baja 
California boundary. Furthermore, these monitored occurrences have not 
undergone the same increase in nonnative vegetation recorded at M. 
viminea occurrences in Sycamore Canyon and on MCAS Miramar. Therefore, 
based on the best available scientific information, we find that 
nonnative species do not constitute a threat to the continued existence 
of M. stoneana.
Small Population Size
    The original listing rule identified the restricted range and small 
population size of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea as a threat as it 
increases the possibility of extinction due to chance events such as 
floods, fires, or drought, outside the natural variability of the 
ecosystem (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998; Lande 1993, p. 912). With the 
split of M. linoides ssp. viminea into two entities, the magnitude of 
this threat would likely increase; however, we note that several 
additional M. stoneana occurrences have been discovered. Similarly, 
Prince (2009, p. 2) suggests that multiple undiscovered occurrences of 
M. stoneana may exist in the vicinity of Tecate Peak. This area has not 
been extensively surveyed, as it is difficult to access. Additional 
habitat may exist in Mexico; however, we are unaware of any surveys 
confirming the presence or absence of M. stoneana in Mexico, apart from 
plants seen directly across the border. Based on information in our 
files, these are the only occurrences in Mexico of which we are aware. 
However, suitable habitat and landscape conditions exist in Mexico, 
close to the current range of the species in the United States.
    Of the 20 known occurrences of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea at 
the time of listing, only 2 were later considered to be M. stoneana. 
Subsequent surveys have identified additional occurrences, and M. 
stoneana is currently known from approximately eight occurrences in the 
Otay Mountains area (CNDDB 2010b). The number of plants in Mexico is 
unknown and has been minimally investigated. Plants across the border 
in Mexico are visible from at least two occurrences south of Otay 
Mountain, but these occurrences have not been formally surveyed. 
Additionally, the most recent survey for this area was in 2005 (CNDDB 
2010a), so the continued existence of these Mexico occurrences and the 
number of clumps present cannot be confirmed.
    Any decrease in occurrences may result in decreased reproductive 
opportunities and genetic exchange between canyons through pollination. 
However, effects from this threat may be less severe if more 
occurrences exist in Mexico than are currently known. However, we do 
not consider small population size alone sufficient to meet the 
information threshold indicating that the species warrants listing. In 
the absence of information identifying threats to the species and 
linking those threats to the rarity of the species, the Service does 
not consider rarity or small populations alone to be a threat. For 
example, the habitat supporting M. viminea faces significant threats 
from the impacts of fire, altered hydrologic regimes, and competition 
with nonnative plants. As discussed above, M. stoneana does not face 
such threats. A species that has always had small population sizes or 
been rare, yet continues to survive, is likely well equipped to 
continue to exist into the future. Many naturally rare species have 
persisted for long periods within small geographic areas, and many 
naturally rare species exhibit traits that allow them to persist 
despite their small population sizes. Monardella stoneana appears to 
have persisted for over two decades in the two occurrences known since 
the 1970s and 1980s, respectively (CNDDB 2010b; EOs 1 and 4); this is 
in contrast to M. viminea occurrences, many of which have undergone 
population declines during the same time period. The other seven 
occurrences were discovered in 2003 or later, so long-term data are not 
available; one of those seven occurrences has since been extirpated (EO 
5). Monardella stoneana has not experienced a significant population 
decline since listing, nor have multiple occurrences been extirpated. 
One of two occurrences monitored by the City of San Diego (EO 1) has 
remained stable throughout the past decade of monitoring, though one 
occurrence (EO 5) containing one clump was extirpated (although the EO 
5 occurrence contained a maximum of only two clumps since monitoring 
began in 2000). This is in contrast to M. viminea, which has 
experienced a loss of several populations since listing. Consequently, 
the fact that this species is rare and has small populations does not 
indicate that it is in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, though small population size may pose a threat to M. 
stoneana, it is not alone enough to cause the extinction of the species 
within the foreseeable future.
Fire
    As discussed under Factor E for Monardella viminea, fire can impact 
individual plants. This is especially true of megafire events that 
cannot be controlled or ameliorated through management efforts. A 
narrow endemic such as M. stoneana could be especially sensitive to 
megafire events. One large fire could impact all or a large proportion 
of the entire area where the species is found, as occurred for M. 
viminea in the 2003 Cedar fire. However, as discussed in Factor E for 
M. viminea, the decline of the burned occurrences of M. viminea was not 
as severe as initially expected. We expect that M. stoneana would 
experience the same ability to sprout from the roots, as it is closely 
related to M. viminea.
    Furthermore, despite the increased frequency of fire, M. stoneana 
has persisted through all large fires in the region. The GIS fire 
boundaries show that each occurrence of M. stoneana has been burned at 
least once in the past decade. In the past two decades, 8 of 9 EOs 
burned two or more times, and 4 occurrences burned three or more times. 
The only reports of damage are from EO 5, which lost its one remaining 
plant, and EO 4, which was ``damaged'' in a recent (unspecified) fire, 
but not extirpated (CNDDB 2010b). In the occasion that a fire impacts 
all of the occurrences, we anticipate that the effects to M. stoneana 
individuals would be comparable to M. viminea, where the best available 
information show individuals are recovering from having 98 percent of 
the occurrences on MCAS Miramar being burned in the 2003 Cedar Fire.

[[Page 33900]]

    Given the increased frequency of megafires within Southern 
California ecosystems, and the inability of regulatory mechanisms to 
prevent or control megafire, we find that megafire does have the 
potential to impact occurrences of Monardella stoneana. However, given 
the species' persistence through past fires, and the ability of a 
closely related species to recover from direct impact by fires, we do 
not expect that megafire is a significant threat to individual M. 
stoneana plants now, nor is likely to become a threat in the 
foreseeable future.
Climate Change
    As noted above in our status determination for Monardella viminea, 
a broad consensus exists among scientists that the earth is in a 
warming trend caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as carbon 
dioxide (IPCC 2007). Researchers have documented climate-related 
changes in California (Croke et al. 1998, pp. 2128, 2130; Breshears et 
al. 2005, p. 15144). Predictions for California indicate prolonged 
drought and other climate-related changes will continue in the future 
(e.g., Field et al. 1999, pp. 8-10; Lenihen et al. 2003, p. 1667; 
Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Breshears et al. 2005, p. 15144; Seager 
et al. 2007, p. 1181; IPCC 2007, p. 9). Models are not yet powerful 
enough to predict what will happen in localized regions such as 
southern California and northern Baja California, but many scientists 
believe warmer, wetter winters and warmer, drier summers will occur 
within the next century (Field et al. 1999, pp. 2-3, 20). The impacts 
on species like M. stoneana, which depend on specific hydrological 
regimes, may be more severe (Graham 1997, p. 2).
    Since approximately the time of listing in 1998, an extended 
drought in the region (San Diego County Water Authority 2010, p. 2) 
created unusually dry habitat conditions. From 2000 to 2009, at one of 
the closer precipitation gauges to the Monardella stoneana occurrences 
(Lake Cuyamaca, San Diego County, California), 8 of 10 years had 
precipitation significantly below normal (San Diego County Water 
Authority 2010, p. 2). This extended drought has cumulatively affected 
moisture regimes, riparian habitat, and vegetative conditions in and 
around suitable habitat for M. stoneana, increasing the stress on 
individual plants. As stated above, future climate changes may lead to 
similar, if not more severe, conditions.
    The predicted drought could impact the dynamics of the streambeds 
where Monardella stoneana grows. Soil moisture and transportation of 
sediments by downstream flow have been identified as key habitat 
features required by M. stoneana. The species is characterized as being 
associated with areas of standing water after rainfall (Elvin and 
Sanders 2003, p. 426). Monitors for the City of San Diego have observed 
decreased plant health and increased dormancy of Monardella species in 
years with low rainfall (City of San Diego 2003, p. 3; City of San 
Diego 2004, p. 3). Specific analyses of population trends as correlated 
to rainfall are difficult due to inconsistent plant count methods (City 
of San Diego 2004, p. 67).
    While drier conditions associated with climate change may result in 
increased fire frequency within some plant communities as discussed 
under Factor A, the effect of more arid conditions is not known on 
chaparral, the plant community associated with Monardella stoneana. 
According to Minnich and Bahre (1997, p. 20), fires in the chaparral of 
northern Baja California, Mexico, are smaller and more frequent than 
those observed across the border in southern California. Nonetheless, 
despite these differences in the present fire regimes within chaparral 
in California and Mexico, Minnich and Bahre (1997, p. 20) concluded 
that their ``repeat photographs of the monument markers, field samples, 
repeat aerial photography, and fire history maps show that chaparral 
succession is similar across the international boundary between Jacumba 
[in California] and Tecate [in Mexico] and that chaparral succession 
along the border is similar to that found elsewhere in California.'' 
Except for a statistically significant correlation that early autumn 
rains cut short the fire season at its peak, Keeley and Fotheringham 
(2003, p. 235) did not find patterns between rainfall and burning for 
chaparral and coastal sage shrublands. As a result, increased aridity 
may have little effect on chaparral.
    Preliminary information for Monardella stoneana does show that the 
effects of climate change on chaparral may be less than the effects on 
coastal sage scrub (see Climate Change section for M. viminea above). 
While we recognize that climate change and increased drought associated 
with climate change are important issues with potential effects to 
listed species and their habitats, the best available scientific 
evidence does not give specific evidence for us to formulate accurate 
predictions regarding climate change's effects to particular species, 
including M. stoneana, at this time. Therefore, we do not consider 
global climate change a current threat to M. stoneana, either now or in 
the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
    We found no evidence that other natural or manmade factors pose a 
significant threat to M. stoneana. Based on a review of the best 
available scientific and commercial data, trampling and nonnative 
invasive plant species are not a significant threat. We conclude based 
on the best available scientific information that M. stoneana could be 
affected temporarily by fire impacts associated with the death of 
individual plants; however, we do not consider this a threat to the 
continued existence of the species. Small population size could 
exacerbate other threats, but as there are none, this is not a factor; 
small population size in itself does not cause M. stoneana to be 
warranted for listing. In addition, BLM conducts ongoing management 
that provides a benefit to M. stoneana. Finally, with regard to the 
direct and indirect effects of climate change on individual M. stoneana 
plants, we have no information at this point to demonstrate that 
predicted climate changes pose a significant threat to the species now 
or in the foreseeable future.

Proposed Determination--Monardella stoneana

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to Monardella stoneana. Unlike M. viminea, M. stoneana has not 
undergone a dramatic decline in population size. While megafire and 
small population size may impact M. stoneana, these factors do not pose 
a threat to the continued existence of the species. Apart from those 
factors, we found no significant threats to M. stoneana related to 
Factors A, B, C, D, or E, as described above. We find that the best 
available information for Factor A (The Present or Threatened 
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range), 
including information on the potential effects of urban development, 
sand and gravel mining, type conversion due to frequent fire, and 
altered hydrology, indicates that listing M. stoneana as endangered or 
threatened under the Act is not warranted based on the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range. To the extent that M. stoneana may be experiencing localized 
impacts, analysis of recent and current surveys of M. stoneana habitat 
in the Otay Mountain locations indicate that its habitat is

[[Page 33901]]

under protective status and remains in relatively good condition, with 
active management and monitoring activities. We found no available 
information concerning Factors B (Overutilization) and C (Disease or 
Predation) to indicate that listing M. stoneana as endangered or 
threatened under the Act is warranted. We find that the best available 
information concerning Factor D (Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms) indicates that listing the M. stoneana as endangered or 
threatened under the Act is not warranted based on inadequacy of 
existing regulations. We find that the best available information 
concerning Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its 
Continued Existence) indicates that trampling and nonnative plants are 
not currently threats to the continued existence of M. stoneana, nor 
are they expected to be in the foreseeable future. We do not consider 
M. stoneana's small population size in and of itself a threat such that 
the species warrants listing, nor is it expected to be in the 
foreseeable future. A species like M. stoneana that has always had 
small population sizes or been rare, yet continues to survive, is 
likely well equipped to continue to exist into the future. 
Additionally, unlike M. viminea, M. stoneana has not undergone a 
dramatic decline in population size. We have no information to 
demonstrate that predicted climate changes will result in a significant 
threat to the species now or in the foreseeable future. Even though M. 
stoneana could be affected by megafire, we do not believe that megafire 
poses a significant threat to the existence of the species now or in 
the foreseeable future.
    In conclusion, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by Monardella stoneana. Our review of the 
information pertaining to the five threat factors does not support a 
conclusion that threats of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 
magnitude exist--either singly or in combination--to the extent that 
the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Therefore, based on the best available scientific information, 
we find M. stoneana does not warrant listing at this time. However, if 
we receive new information that alters our analysis, we will revisit 
and re-evaluate the status of M. stoneana. We are specifically seeking 
public comment on this determination. Please refer to the ADDRESSES 
section of this rule for information on where to submit your comments 
and materials concerning this proposed rule.

Critical Habitat--Monardella viminea

    Due to the taxonomic split of Monardella linoides ssp. viminea into 
two distinct taxa (Monardella viminea (willowy monardella) and 
Monardella stoneana (Jennifer's monardella); see Taxonomic and 
Nomenclatural Changes Affecting Monardella linoides ssp. viminea 
section above), and our conclusions that M. viminea is endangered and 
M. stoneana is not warranted for listing, we are proposing revising 
critical habitat for M. viminea. If we subsequently determine based on 
the best available information that M. stoneana should be listed, we 
will propose critical habitat, if prudent, for M. stoneana.

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features:
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) That may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies insure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse 
modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and 
the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to 
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain physical and biological features which are essential to 
the conservation of the species and which may require special 
management considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations 
identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial 
data available, those physical and biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat), focusing on the principal biological or 
physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within an 
area that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, 
soil type). Primary constituent elements are the elements of physical 
and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, 
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited 
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate 
that the conservation needs of the species require such additional 
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An 
area currently occupied by

[[Page 33902]]

the species, but that was not occupied at the time of listing may, 
however, be essential to the conservation of the species and may be 
included in the critical habitat designation.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality 
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide 
guidance to ensure our decisions are based on the best scientific data 
available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with 
the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use 
primary and original sources of information as the basis for 
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, the species' most recent 5-year 
Review, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal 
knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for 
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated 
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their 
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The information 
currently available on the effects of global climate change and 
increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently precise estimates of 
the location and magnitude of the effects to enable us to accurately 
predict its impacts on the narrow habitat range of Monardella viminea, 
which is limited to the western portion of central San Diego County. We 
are also not currently aware of any climate change information specific 
to the habitat of M. viminea that would indicate what areas may become 
important to the species in the future. Therefore, we are unable to 
determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate to include 
in the critical habitat for this species to address the effects of 
climate change.
    We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point 
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later 
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these 
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat 
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for 
recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation 
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat 
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions 
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions 
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to 
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at 
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Monardella viminea

Physical and Biological Features

    In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to designate as 
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species which may require special 
management considerations or protection. These include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical and biological features required 
for Monardella viminea from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, 
and life history as described below. We also reviewed monitoring 
reports from private firms, the City of San Diego, Friends of Los 
Pe[ntilde]asquitos Canyon, the Service, and MCAS Miramar; technical 
reports; the CNDDB (CNDDB 2010a, EOs 1-31.); Geographic Information 
System (GIS) data (such as species occurrence data, soil data, land 
use, topography, aerial imagery, and ownership maps); correspondence to 
the Service from recognized experts; and other information as 
available. Additional information can be found in the final listing 
rule published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 
54938).
    The primary constituent elements required for Monardella viminea 
are derived from the physical and biological needs of this species as 
described in the Background section for M. viminea in the beginning of 
this proposal, the previous critical habitat rule (71 FR 65662; 
November 8, 2006), the final listing rule (63 FR 54938; October 13, 
1998), and below. The areas in this proposed critical habitat contain 
or support the soil types, potential insect pollinators, and vegetation 
associated with M. viminea occupancy, and include areas adjacent to 
plants (or plant clumps) necessary to maintain associated physical 
processes, such as suitable hydrological regime, and biotic 
associations, such as pollination. These areas provide suitable space, 
water, minerals, and other physiological needs for reproduction and 
growth of M. viminea. We have determined that M. viminea requires the 
physical and biological features described below:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Habitats that provide space for growth and persistence of 
Monardella viminea include: (1) Washes in coastal sage scrub or 
riparian scrub vegetation; (2) terraced secondary benches, channel 
banks, and stabilized sand bars; (3) soils with a high content of 
coarse-grained sand and low content of silt and clay; and (4) open 
ground cover, less than half of which is herbaceous vegetation cover 
(Scheid 1985, pp. 30-35; Service 1998, p. 54938; Elvin and Sanders 
2003,

[[Page 33903]]

pp. 426, 430; Kelly and Burrascano 2006, p. 51).
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Monardella viminea is most often found on the first above-water 
sandbar in intermittent streambeds, where water runs for 24 to 48 hours 
after heavy rain events (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 430; Kelly and 
Burrascano 2006, p. 51). It can also be found within the streambed if 
flow is infrequent enough and the soil is stable (Scheid 1985, pp. 3, 
38-39). The most robust M. viminea individuals tend to occur in wide, 
open canyons with broad channels and secondary benches, as opposed to 
narrow, graded canyons (Kassebaum 2010, pers. comm.).
    Monardella viminea plants are found on soil where subsurface layers 
stay relatively moist throughout the year and where water accumulates 
after rainstorms, such as north-facing slopes or canyon bottoms (Elvin 
and Sanders 2003, pp. 426, 430). Plants with inadequate soil moisture 
dry out during summer months and do not survive (Kelly and Burrascano 
2006, p. 5). The species does not occur on soils that are permanently 
wet (Elvin and Sanders 2003, p. 425). Monardella viminea occurrences 
have been lost from areas where wetter soils result in an increase in 
density of surrounding vegetation (Kelly and Burrascano 2001, p. 4).
    Monardella viminea most generally occurs on soil types with high 
sand content, often characterized by sediment and cobble deposited by 
flood events (Scheid 1985, p. 35; Rebman and Dossey 2006a, pp. 5-6). 
Natural Resources Conservation Service soil series where M. viminea is 
known to occur includes (but may not be limited to): Stony Land, 
Redding Gravelly Loam, Visalia Sandy Loam, and Riverwash (Rebman and 
Dossey 2006a, p. 6).
Cover or Shelter
    Monardella viminea requires open to semi-open canopies of coastal 
sage and riparian scrub with limited herbaceous understory. Monardella 
viminea plants usually occur in areas with an average of 75 percent 
ground cover, of which approximately 65 percent is woody cover, and 
less than 10 percent is herbaceous cover (Scheid 1985, pp. 32, 37-38). 
Herbaceous cover, such as annual grasses, can grow in greater density 
than native riparian and chaparral species, and through resource 
competition and shading, herbaceous cover would likely prevent natural 
growth and reproduction of M. viminea (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 12); 
therefore, suitable habitat for the species is not dominated by 
herbaceous cover.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    Monardella viminea is visited by numerous bees and butterflies, and 
is likely pollinated by a diverse array of insects, each of which have 
their own habitat requirements (see Life History section for M. viminea 
above); however, we are currently unaware of which insect species 
pollinate M. viminea. Pollinators facilitate mixing of genes within and 
among plant populations, without which inbreeding and reduced fitness 
may occur (Widen and Widen 1990, p. 191). Native sand wasps within the 
range of M. viminea, such as those from the Bembicine family, require 
sandy areas, such as dunes or sandy washes, to nest, while solitary 
bees from the Andrenidae family nest in upland areas (Kelly and 
Burrascano 2001, p. 8). Native bees typically are more efficient 
pollinators than introduced European honeybees (Javorek et al. 2002, p. 
345). Therefore, populations serviced by a higher proportion of native 
pollinator species are likely to maintain higher reproductive output 
and persist for more generations than populations served by fewer 
native pollinators or with pollination limitations of any kind (Javorek 
et al. 2002, p. 350). Pollinators also require space for individual and 
population growth; therefore, adequate habitat should be preserved for 
pollinators in addition to the habitat necessary for M. viminea plants. 
In this proposed critical habitat, we acknowledge the importance of 
pollinators to M. viminea. However, we do not include pollinators and 
their habitats as a primary constituent element (PCE), because: (1) 
Meaningful data on specific pollinators and their habitat needs are 
lacking; and (2) we were not able to quantify the amount of habitat 
needed for pollinators, given the lack of information on the specific 
pollinators of M. viminea.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
    The long-term conservation of Monardella viminea is dependent on 
several factors including, but not limited to, maintenance of areas 
necessary to sustain natural ecosystem components, functions, and 
processes (such as full sun exposure and natural hydrologic regimes); 
and sufficient adjacent suitable habitat for vegetative reproduction, 
population expansion, and pollination.
    Open or semi-open rocky, sandy alluvium on terraced floodplains, 
benches, stabilized sandbars, channel banks, and sandy washes along 
ephemeral streams, washes, and floodplains are needed for individual 
and population growth of Monardella viminea (Scheid 1985, pp. 30-31, 
34-35). Within those areas, M. viminea requires adequate sunlight to 
grow. Woody overgrowth is common and can help to maintain adequate soil 
moisture, but areas crowded with herbaceous understory may not provide 
adequate light for M. viminea.
    The 2008 5-year review (Service 2008, p. 7) concluded that 
Monardella viminea requires a natural hydrological regime to maintain 
or create suitable habitat conditions. This hydrological regime 
maintains the floodplains, benches, and sandbars where M. viminea 
grows. Characteristics of riparian channels and seasonal stream flow 
determine timing, pattern, and depth of deposition of alluvial 
materials and formation of sandbars and channel banks, which in turn 
determine location of plants within the streambed, and suitable habitat 
to support individuals and clumps of M. viminea (Scheid 1985, pp. 30-31 
and 36-37). Decreases in flows, which would otherwise scour annual 
grasses and seeds from the area, result in increased cover of nonnative 
grasses, and decreased light and moisture availability for M. viminea. 
Rapidly growing nonnative grasses can smother seedling and mature M. 
viminea and prevent natural growth (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 12). 
Additionally, increased flows can result in erosion that may alter 
floodplains and erode banks, channel bars, and sandy washes where M. 
viminea occurs (Kelly and Burrascano 2006, pp. 65-69).

Primary Constituent Elements

    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of Monardella viminea in areas occupied at the time of 
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We 
consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical 
and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent 
element specific to Monardella viminea is riparian channels with 
ephemeral drainages and adjacent floodplains:

[[Page 33904]]

    (1) With a natural hydrological regime, in which:
    (a) Water flows only after peak seasonal rainstorms;
    (b) High runoff events periodically scour riparian vegetation and 
redistribute alluvial material to create new stream channels, benches, 
and sandbars; and
    (c) Water flows for usually less than 48 hours after a rain event, 
without long-term standing water;
    (2) Surrounding vegetation that provides semi-open, foliar cover 
with:
    (a) Little or no herbaceous understory;
    (b) Little to no canopy cover;
    (c) Open ground cover, less than half of which is herbaceous 
vegetation cover;
    (d) Some shrub cover; and
    (e) An association of other plants, including Eriogonum 
fasciculatum (California buckwheat) and Baccharis sarothroides (broom 
baccharis);
    (3) That contain ephemeral drainages that:
    (a) Are made up of coarse, rocky, or sandy alluvium; and
    (b) Contain terraced floodplains, terraced secondary benches, 
stabilized sandbars, channel banks, or sandy washes; and
    (4) That have soil with high sand content, typically characterized 
by sediment and cobble deposits, and further characterized by a high 
content of coarse, sandy grains and low content of silt and clay.
    The need for space for individual and population growth and normal 
behavior is provided by all sections of the PCE. The need for food, 
water, air, light, minerals, or other physiological requirements is 
provided by all sections of the PCE. Cover and shelter requirements are 
provided by section (2) of the PCE. Areas for reproduction are provided 
by all sections of the PCE. Finally, habitats representative of the 
historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species are 
provided by all sections of the PCE.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the physical 
and biological features within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing that are essential to the conservation 
of the species may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    The area proposed for designation as critical habitat will require 
some level of management or protection to address the current and 
future threats to the physical and biological features. In all units, 
special management considerations or protection may be required to 
provide for the sustained function of the ephemeral washes on which 
Monardella viminea depends.
    The primary constituent element for M. viminea may require special 
management considerations or protection to reduce the following 
threats, among others: cover by nonnative plant species that crowds, 
shades, or competes for resources; habitat alteration due to altered 
hydrology from urbanization and associated infrastructure; and any 
actions that alter the natural channel structure or course, 
particularly increased water flow that could erode soils inhabited by 
M. viminea or cover them with sediment deposits (all sections of PCE). 
Conservation actions that could be implemented to address these threats 
include (but are not limited to): Removal of nonnative vegetation by 
weeding; planting of native species along stream courses in canyons to 
help control erosion; use of silt fences to control erosion; 
restriction of development that alters natural hydrological 
characteristics of stream courses in canyons; and implementation of 
prescribed burns (all sections of PCE). Additionally, specialized dams 
and smaller barriers could be installed in canyons to help address 
floodwater runoff that results from upstream development (which can 
cause erosion and loss of clumps of M. viminea), though these dams must 
be of adequate size and strength to withstand increased storm flow 
caused by urbanization (PCE section 3).

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat. 
We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements 
of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing 
regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating 
additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well as those 
occupied at the time of listing--is necessary to ensure the 
conservation of the species. We are not currently proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing because currently occupied areas (which 
are within the area occupied by the species at the time of listing) are 
sufficient for the conservation of the species.
    This proposed rule updates the information used in our 2006 final 
designation of critical habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea 
(71 FR 65662; November 8, 2006) with the best available data, including 
new information not available when the 2006 rule was completed.
    This section provides details of the process we used to delineate 
the proposed critical habitat. This proposed critical habitat 
designation is based on the best scientific data available, including 
our analysis of the distribution and ecology of Monardella viminea as 
identified in the 1998 final listing rule, the 2008 5-year review, new 
information on the species' distribution and ecology made available 
since listing, reclassification of M. viminea as a species, and State 
and local measures in place for the conservation of M. viminea. 
Specific differences from the 2006 designation of critical habitat are 
described in the Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical 
Habitat section below.
    The areas in this proposed designation of critical habitat for 
Monardella viminea were occupied by the species at the time of listing 
and remain occupied today, and they possess those specific physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species that 
may require special management considerations or protection. For this 
proposed rule, we completed the following steps to delineate critical 
habitat: (1) Compiled all available data from observations of M. 
viminea into a GIS database; (2) identified occurrences that were 
extant at the time of listing and those occurrences that are currently 
extant or contain transplanted M. viminea; (3) identified areas 
containing all the components that make up the PCE that may require 
special management considerations or protection; (4) circumscribed 
boundaries of potential critical habitat units based on the above 
information; and (5) removed all areas that did not have the PCE and 
therefore are not considered essential to the conservation of M. 
viminea, or that are exempt from critical habitat under 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 
of the Act. These steps are described in detail below.
    (1) We compiled observational data from the following sources to 
include in our GIS database for Monardella viminea: (a) CNDDB data and 
supporting observation documentation information on M. viminea; (b) 
monitoring reports from MCAS Miramar; and (c) monitoring reports from 
private organizations and local government organizations, such as the 
Carroll Canyon Business Park and the City of San Diego Subarea Plan 
under the MSCP. No monitoring reports from the County of San Diego were 
available.

[[Page 33905]]

    (2) We considered extant all occurrences where presence of living 
plants has been confirmed within the past 10 years. Using this 
information, we determined that seven occurrences are currently extant. 
Based on data from the CNDDB, we confirmed that all of these seven 
occurrences were known and extant at the time of listing. We also 
documented the presence of transplanted individual plants in Carroll, 
San Clemente, and Lopez Canyons and included them in our analysis.
    (3) To identify areas containing all the components that make up 
the PCE for Monardella viminea that may require special management 
considerations or protection, we conducted the following steps:
    (a) We determined occurrence locations likely to belong to the same 
population. Regardless of observation date, all occurrence locations 
downstream from an extant occurrence and which would be connected to 
the upstream occurrence during runoff events (that could transport 
seeds downstream) were considered part of the same extant occurrence; 
this was completed by examining survey reports from MCAS Miramar, the 
City of San Diego, and the Friends of Los Pe[ntilde]asquitos Canyon.
    (b) In order to create a scientifically based approach to drawing 
critical habitat units, we first examined the utility of GIS vegetation 
data polygons containing Monardella viminea occurrences (SANDAG 1995) 
because the species is frequently associated with coastal sage scrub 
and riparian scrub habitats (Scheid 1985, p. 3; Elvin and Sanders 2003, 
p. 430; Kelly and Burrascano 2006, p. 51). In an attempt to better 
distinguish the width of the specific areas within drainages that 
contain the PCE, we searched for a correlation between habitat type and 
clumps of M. viminea. We found M. viminea occurred in areas mapped as 
11 different vegetation types, with the greatest number (45 percent) 
falling within ``Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub.'' We noted that mapped 
polygons of this vegetation type and some other vegetation types were 
relatively large and did not correspond well with the drainage areas 
where M. viminea and the PCE was likely to occur, indicating that they 
were poor predictors for areas that contain the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of M. viminea.
    (c) We examined polygons that were labeled as ``riparian'' 
vegetation for possible useful information to assist in delineation of 
potential critical habitat areas because Monardella viminea is 
generally described as a riparian-associated species. We found that 
although southern sycamore-alder riparian woodland is rare in canyons 
where M. viminea exists, where it is present, it closely corresponds to 
areas that contain M. viminea and the physical and biological features 
essential to its conservation. Because of this close correlation, we 
used the southern sycamore-alder riparian woodland habitat type to 
identify the widest distance of a riparian vegetation type polygon from 
an occupied streambed line; we found this distance to be 490 ft (150 
m).
    (d) We then tested the 490 ft (150 m) value as an estimate of the 
distance from the streambed most likely to capture the PCE throughout 
the species' range. We used the widest distance from the streambed to 
help identify areas that meet the definition of critical habitat rather 
than the median (or another value). We wanted to ensure that we 
captured all potential areas that have the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of M. viminea versus those areas 
that only contain occurrences of the species. We found that this 490 ft 
(150 m) distance, when applied to all streambeds where M. viminea 
occurred, captured all clumps of M. viminea except two in the southern 
end of West Sycamore Canyon. The two southern clumps occur in an area 
that appears to be a remnant habitat wash area at the end of West 
Sycamore Canyon, which likely received additional stream flow during 
storm events greater than 48 hours after a rain event (or more 
frequently than just after a peak seasonal rainstorm), and thus does 
not likely support occupancy long term nor significantly contribute to 
population persistence.
    The conservation of Monardella viminea depends on preservation of 
habitat containing the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species. Like most plants, M. viminea is 
occasionally found in areas considered atypical for the species. For 
example, a plant was once found growing in mesa-top habitat along a 
tributary of Rose Canyon (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 24, no EO 
number). We consider that the habitat areas outlined using the method 
described above will capture only the habitat that contains the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of M. 
viminea. We determined the distance of 492 ft (150 m) was appropriate 
to capture areas surrounding occupied streambeds that contain the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and that meet the definition of critical habitat, and we 
applied it across the species' range.
    (4) We removed all areas not containing the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of Monardella viminea. 
Monardella viminea requires all four sections of the PCE for growth and 
reproduction; thus, only areas that contained all four sections of the 
PCE were considered as critical habitat. We removed areas in Rose 
Canyon (no EO number), Elanus Canyon (EO 24), and Lopez Canyon (EO 1), 
and all four transplanted occurrences. All of these areas are 
characterized by dense urban development on at least one border. As 
discussed under Factor A for M. viminea, urbanization results in 
increased frequency and intensity of storm flow events, to the point 
that they wash away sandbars rather than scouring them of vegetation. 
Further discussion of why we did not include these occurrences as 
critical habitat is included in the Summary of Changes from Previously 
Designated Critical Habitat section below. We also removed areas within 
the boundaries of MCAS Miramar for this proposed rule because these 
areas are exempt under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act from critical 
habitat designation (see Exemptions section below).
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
physical and biological features for Monardella viminea. The scale of 
the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the 
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such 
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical 
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed critical habitat 
have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed 
for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat 
is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would 
not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and 
the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action 
would affect the physical and biological features in the adjacent 
critical habitat.
    We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we 
have determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain 
sufficient elements of physical and biological features to support 
life-history processes essential for the conservation of the species.

[[Page 33906]]

Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat

    The areas identified in this proposed rule constitute a revision of 
the areas we described and mapped as meeting the definition of critical 
habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea in the final critical 
habitat designation published in the Federal Register on November 8, 
2006 (71 FR 65662) (see Table 2). This proposed rule identifies 348 ac 
(141 ha) that meet the definition of critical habitat for Monardella 
viminea. This proposed rule includes all 73 ac (30 ha) designated as 
critical habitat in the final rule in 2006, and portions of areas 
excluded from the 2006 designation. This proposed rule also differs in 
area from the 2006 designation due to the removal of areas now 
identified as habitat for M. stoneana (255 ac (103 ha); 71 FR 65662, 
November 8, 2006), as described above in the Background section of this 
proposed rule. The rest of the change in area is primarily due to our 
improved GIS mapping techniques, improved description of the areas 
containing the PCE for M. viminea, and our removal of lands in Lopez 
Canyon, Elanus Canyon, and Rose Canyon that we no longer consider to 
meet the definition of critical habitat (see Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat section above and Proposed Critical Habitat 
Designation--Monardella viminea section below).
    The differences between this proposed rule and the 2006 critical 
habitat designation include the following:
    (1) Recognition of Monardella linoides subsp. viminea as two 
distinct taxa at the species rank as Monardella viminea (willowy 
monardella) and M. stoneana (Jennifer's monardella). Given our 
determination that M. viminea warrants listing as endangered, we are 
proposing critical habitat for M. viminea.
    (2) We revised the Background section to include our updated 
knowledge of life history, taxonomy, and nomenclature, including 
information on potential pollinators of Monardella viminea.
    (3) We revised the description of the PCEs for Monardella viminea 
to include a single PCE with more detailed information on the physical 
and biological features essential to Monardella viminea including soil 
characteristics, disturbance regimes, stream flow, and ground cover 
that support this species.
    (4) We revised the criteria used to identify critical habitat based 
on our reevaluation of all available Monardella viminea information, 
including that available since the publication of the 2006 rule, to 
ensure this proposed rule reflects the best available scientific data. 
Our conclusion based on this reevaluation differs from the 2006 
critical habitat designation in how we identified and delineated 
critical habitat.
    (5) Our reevaluation does not identify some areas as critical 
habitat that were designated as critical habitat in the 2006 final 
critical habitat rule. In the 2006 final critical habitat rule, all 
habitat containing occurrences of Monardella viminea was classified as 
critical habitat. However, we have revised the PCE for M. viminea based 
on our improved understanding of the habitat features essential for the 
species' conservation and, in this proposed rule, we have proposed 
critical habitat only in locations that contain the revised PCE. While 
Elanus, Lopez, and Rose Canyons contain species occurrences, they do 
not contain the PCE. We now recognize that urbanization around all 
three canyons has substantially altered drainage patterns, such that 
peak flood events have increased in intensity and frequency to the 
point where they occur more than just after peak rainfall events, and 
such that they regularly wash away entire channels and benches where M. 
viminea grows (PCE section (3)(b)). Thus the three areas do not contain 
all the components that make up the PCE identified for M. viminea.
    We note that the habitat available in these canyons only supports a 
limited number of plants: Elanus Canyon has approximately 16 plants, 
Lopez Canyon has 8 plants, and Rose Canyon has the smallest occurrence 
of Monardella viminea with only 3 plants. Rose Canyon contains limited 
habitat for M. viminea, with little space downstream for expansion of 
the occurrence (Kassebaum 2010, pers. comm.), and the area around Rose 
Canyon is developed, which has disrupted the natural hydrological 
regime on which long-term persistence of M. viminea depends (Rebman and 
Dossey 2006, p. 37), resulting in high runoff events that occur more 
frequently than just at peak seasonal rainfalls. The area around Lopez 
Canyon is also heavily urbanized, and floods from storm runoff have 
already eroded channels and benches where M. viminea grows. A portion 
of land surrounding the southern half of Elanus Canyon has been 
developed. This development, located along the eastern side of the 
canyon, has also resulted in altered hydrology. Thus, we do not 
consider Elanus, Lopez, or Rose Canyons to meet the definition of 
critical habitat.
    We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point 
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later 
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For this 
reason, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat 
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for 
recovery of the species. We solicit information during the public 
comment period on any areas that we have not included in this proposed 
rule (including Elanus, Lopez, and Rose Canyons), including any 
evidence that they meet the definition of critical habitat (see Public 
Comments section).
    (6) We changed unit numbers and names in this proposed rule to 
reflect estimated population distributions instead of political 
boundaries (such as former Unit 2 that consisted of all partial 
polygons within MCAS Miramar, regardless of population distribution).
    (7) Our revised criteria resulted in both inclusion of areas that 
meet the definition of critical habitat and removal of areas from the 
2005 proposed rule or the 2006 final rule that do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat. Changes from areas identified in the 
2005 proposed rule as meeting the definition of critical habitat 
include the exclusion of areas in Elanus, Lopez, and Rose Canyons that 
we no longer consider to meet the definition of critical habitat (see 
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat section above).
    (8) We did not include any areas associated with former Units 7, 8, 
and 9, described in the 2006 final critical habitat designation for 
Monardella linoides ssp. viminea, because these areas/occurrences are 
now recognized as supporting M. stoneana (see Taxonomic and 
Nomenclatural Changes Affecting Monardella linoides ssp. viminea 
section above).
    The differences between the 2006 final critical habitat designation 
and the proposed revised critical habitat designation in this rule are 
summarized below in Table 2. Please note that Table 2's units for the 
2006 final rule do not correspond to the unit numbers presented in that 
rule; they correspond to the proposed units in this document.

[[Page 33907]]



 Table 2--Comparison of the 2006 Final Critical Habitat Designation for Monardella Linoides ssp. Viminea and the
                                    proposed critical habitat for M. Viminea.
  [Note: This table does not include the 255 ac (103 ha) of habitat now identified as occupied by M. stoneana.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2006 final critical habitat           2011 proposed critical habitat
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Location                                    Area containing                         Area containing
                                       Unit name      essential features       Unit name      essential features
                                                            ac (ha)                                 ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sycamore Canyon.................  Unit 1 Partial      373 (151).........  Unit 1 Partial      350 (142)
                                   4(a)(3)(B)(i)                           4(a)(3)(B)(i)
                                   exemption.                              exemption.
West Sycamore Canyon............  ..................  529 (214).........  Unit 2 Partial      577 (233)
                                                                           4(a)(3)(B)(i)
                                                                           exemption.
Spring Canyon...................  ..................  245 (99)..........  Unit 3 Partial      273 (111)
                                                                           4(a)(3)(B)(i)
                                                                           exemption.
East San Clemente Canyon........  ..................  638 (258).........  Unit 4 Partial      467 (189)
                                                                           4(a)(3)(B)(i)
                                                                           exemption.
West San Clemente Canyon........  ..................  114 (46)..........  Unit 5 Partial      227 (92)
                                                                           4(a)(3)(B)(i)
                                                                           exemption.
Lopez Canyon....................  ..................  77 (31)...........  ..................  0 (0)
Elanus Canyon...................  ..................  82 (33)...........  ..................  0 (0)
Rose Canyon.....................  ..................  185 (75)..........  ..................  0 (0)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL ESSENTIAL HABITAT**...  ..................  2,242 (907).......  ..................  1,894 (767)
    TOTAL EXEMPT................  ..................  1,863 (754).......  ..................  1,546 (626)
    TOTAL EXCLUDED OR BEING       ..................  306 (124)           ..................  208 (84)
     CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION.                         (excluded in                            (considered for
                                                       2006).                                  exclusion)
    TOTAL CRITICAL HABITAT*.....  ..................  73 (30) Designated  ..................  348 (141) Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.
** See Table 4 for acreages considered for exclusion in each unit.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation--Monardella viminea

    We are proposing five units as critical habitat for Monardella 
viminea. The proposed critical habitat areas we describe below 
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for M. viminea. This proposed rule, if 
finalized, will replace the current critical habitat designation for M. 
linoides ssp. viminea at 50 CFR 17.96(a). The five units we propose as 
critical habitat are: (1) Sycamore Canyon, (2) West Sycamore Canyon, 
(3) Spring Canyon, (4) East San Clemente Canyon, and (5) West San 
Clemente Canyon. The approximate area of each proposed critical habitat 
unit is shown in Table 3. All proposed units were occupied by M. 
viminea at the time the species was listed (as M. linoides ssp. 
viminea), are currently occupied by M. viminea, and contain the primary 
constituent element essential for the conservation of the species. A 
summary of the five units showing areas, ownership, and exemptions is 
given below in Table 3.

  Table 3--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Monardella Viminea, Showing Estimated Area in Acres (Hectares),
                     Land Ownership, and Areas Exempt Under Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Federal ac       State and      Private ac
     Location of proposed non-exempt acres*            (ha)        local ac (ha)       (ha)        Total ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. Sycamore Canyon.........................           0 (0)         36 (15)        158 (64)        194 (79)
Unit 2. West Sycamore Canyon....................           0 (0)         27 (11)           0 (0)         27 (11)
Unit 3. Spring Canyon...........................           0 (0)           5 (2)         92 (37)         97 (39)
Unit 4. East San Clemente Canyon................           0 (0)           13(5)           0 (0)          13 (5)
Unit 5. West San Clemente Canyon................           0 (0)          16 (7)         <1 (<1)          16 (7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location of Exempt areas at MCAS Miramar--EXEMPT under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sycamore Canyon.................................        156 (63)           0 (0)           0 (0)        156 (63)
West Sycamore Canyon............................       550 (222)           0 (0)           0 (0)       550 (222)
Spring Canyon...................................        176 (71)           0 (0)           0 (0)        176 (71)
East San Clemente Canyon........................       454 (184)           0 (0)           0 (0)       454 (184)
West San Clemente Canyon........................        210 (85)           0 (0)           0 (0)        210 (85)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Essential Habitat.....................     1,546 (625)         86 (35)       263 (106)     1,894 (767)
Total Area Proposed Revised Critical Habitat....           0 (0)         86 (35)       263 (106)     348 (141)**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.
** See Table 4 for acreages proposed for exclusion in each unit.


[[Page 33908]]

    We present brief descriptions of the five proposed critical habitat 
units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for 
Monardella viminea.

Unit 1: Sycamore Canyon

    Unit 1 consists of 194 ac (79 ha) and is located in Sycamore Canyon 
at the northeastern boundary of MCAS Miramar, north of Santee Lakes in 
San Diego County, California. Three separate branches of the canyon 
within the unit pass outside the boundaries of MCAS Miramar and consist 
of 36 ac (15 ha) of land owned by San Diego County, 1 ac (less than 1 
ha) of land owned by water districts, and 158 ac (64 ha) of private 
land, 110 ac (45 ha) of which are within the boundaries of the City of 
Santee, which has no approved MSCP; and 47 ac (19 ha) of which are 
within the boundaries of the City of San Diego. This canyon is the only 
place where Monardella viminea is found in oak woodland habitat, and is 
one of the few areas in the range of M. viminea with mature riparian 
habitat (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 23). Sycamore Canyon, in which 
this unit is found, is essential to the recovery of the species because 
it supports over 400 individuals (City of San Diego 2010, p. 257; 
Tierra Data 2011, p. 12). The habitat in this unit provides redundancy 
and resiliency for M. viminea, and since not all areas of this unit are 
occupied by M. viminea (i.e., the unit is occupied, although there are 
areas such as within the canyon where plants are not currently 
growing), the unit provides space for the growth and expansion of the 
species. This unit contains the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of M. viminea, including riparian 
channels with a natural hydrological regime (PCE section (1)), 
ephemeral drainages made up of rocky or sandy alluvium (PCE section 
(3)), and surrounding vegetation that provides semi-open foliar cover 
(PCE section (2)). The PCE in this subunit may require special 
management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonnative plant species and erosion of the canyon (City of San Diego 
2005, p. 68; 2006, p. 10; 2009, p. 2). Please see the Special 
Management Considerations or Protection--Monardella viminea section of 
this proposed rule for a discussion of the threats to M. viminea 
habitat and potential management considerations. We are considering 
exclusion of portions of Unit 1 (83 ac (34 ha)) for M. viminea from 
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act that are covered by 
the City of San Diego and County of San Diego Subarea Plans under the 
MSCP; see Considered Exclusions--Monardella viminea section of this 
proposed rule for more information.

Unit 2: West Sycamore Canyon

    Unit 2 consists of 27 ac (11 ha), comprised of 21 ac (9 ha) of land 
owned by the City of San Diego and 6 ac (2 ha) of land owned by water 
districts, and is located in West Sycamore Canyon adjacent to the 
eastern section of MCAS Miramar, in San Diego County, California. The 
northernmost point of the unit is just outside the boundary of MCAS 
Miramar. West Sycamore Canyon, in which Unit 2 is found, is essential 
to the recovery of Monardella viminea as it contains the largest number 
of M. viminea individuals of any canyon in the species' range (Tierra 
Data 2011, p. 12). The habitat in this unit provides redundancy and 
resiliency for M. viminea, and since not all areas of this unit are 
occupied by M. viminea (i.e., the unit is occupied, although there are 
areas such as within the canyon where plants are not currently 
growing), the unit provides space for the growth and expansion of the 
species. Unit 2, which contains proposed critical habitat for M. 
viminea in that portion of West Sycamore Canyon located outside of MCAS 
Miramar, contains the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of M. viminea, including riparian channels with a natural 
hydrological regime (PCE section (1)), ephemeral drainages made up of 
rocky or sandy alluvium (PCE section (3)), and surrounding vegetation 
that provides semi-open foliar cover (PCE section (2)). The PCE in this 
unit may require special management considerations or protection to 
address threats associated with erosion from heavy rainfall events. 
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection--
Monardella viminea section of this proposed rule for a discussion of 
the threats to M. viminea habitat and potential management 
considerations. We are considering exclusion of a portion of Unit 2 (21 
ac (9 ha)) for M. viminea from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act that is covered by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan under 
the MSCP; see Considered Exclusions--Monardella viminea section of this 
proposed rule for more information.

Unit 3: Spring Canyon

    Unit 3 consists of 97 ac (39 ha) and is located in Spring Canyon 
south of the border of MCAS Miramar and north of State Route 52 and 
Kumeyaay Lake in San Diego County, California. This unit is composed of 
5 ac (2 ha) of land owned by the City of San Diego and 92 ac (37 ha) of 
private land within the boundaries of the City of San Diego. The 
occurrences in this canyon exist in dense clumps along the canyon on 
the inside edge of meandering portions of the streambed, and on low 
benches adjacent to drainages, and comprise a large population of 
Monardella viminea with over 500 plants in 2002 (Rebman and Dossey 
2006a, pp. 21, 23). Spring Canyon, in which Unit 3 is found, is 
essential to the recovery of M. viminea because, as one of the least 
disturbed canyons on MCAS Miramar and due to its isolation from 
developed areas (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 23), it supports the 
natural hydrological regime necessary for growth and reproduction of 
the species. Unit 3 contains proposed critical habitat for M. viminea 
in that portion of Spring Canyon located outside of MCAS Miramar. 
Spring Canyon, in which Unit 3 is found, is also essential to the 
recovery of the species because it currently contains over 350 
individuals (Tierra Data 2011, p. 12). The habitat in this unit 
provides redundancy and resiliency for M. viminea, and since not all 
areas of this unit are occupied by M. viminea (i.e., the unit is 
occupied although there are areas such as within the canyon where 
plants are not currently growing), the unit provides space for the 
growth and expansion of the species. This unit contains the physical 
and biological features essential to the conservation of M. viminea, 
including riparian channels with a natural hydrological regime (PCE 
section (1)), ephemeral drainages made up of rocky or sandy alluvium 
(PCE section (3)), and surrounding vegetation that provides semi-open 
foliar cover (PCE section (2)). The PCE in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonnative species. Please see the Special Management Considerations or 
Protection--Monardella viminea section of this proposed rule for a 
discussion of the threats to M. viminea habitat and potential 
management considerations. We are considering exclusion of Unit 3 (97 
ac (39 ha)) from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
because all of the land within the unit is covered by the City of San 
Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP; see Considered Exclusions--
Monardella viminea section of this proposed rule for more information.

Unit 4: East San Clemente Canyon

    Unit 4 consists of 13 ac (5 ha) of land located in the eastern 
portion of San Clemente Canyon north of the northeastern border of MCAS 
Miramar

[[Page 33909]]

in San Diego County, California. This unit is composed of 7 ac (3 ha) 
of land owned by the City of San Diego, and 6 ac (3 ha) of land owned 
by the California Department of Transportation. We are considering it a 
separate unit from the other portion of San Clemente Canyon because the 
Sim J. Harris aggregate mine acts as a barrier to the physical and 
biotic continuity between the two portions of the canyon. Unit 4 is 
drier than the western portion of the canyon (Unit 5) and consists of 
mature chaparral habitat (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 22). This unit is 
essential to the recovery of the species because San Clemente Canyon, 
which includes Unit 4, contains over 500 individuals (Rebman and Dossey 
2006a, p. 22). The habitat in this unit provides redundancy and 
resiliency for M. viminea, and since not all areas of this unit are 
occupied by M. viminea (i.e., the unit is occupied, although there are 
areas such as within the canyon where plants are not currently 
growing), the unit provides space for the growth and expansion of the 
species. This unit contains the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of M. viminea, including riparian 
channels with a natural hydrological regime (PCE section (1)), 
ephemeral drainages made up of rocky or sandy alluvium (PCE section 
(3)), and surrounding vegetation that provides semi-open foliar cover 
(PCE section (2)). The PCE in this unit may require special management 
considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative species. 
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection--
Monardella viminea section of this proposed rule for a discussion of 
the threats to M. viminea habitat and potential management 
considerations. We are considering exclusion of a portion of Unit 4 (7 
ac (3 ha)) for M. viminea from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act that is covered by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan under 
the MSCP; see Considered Exclusions--Monardella viminea section of this 
proposed rule for more information.

Unit 5: West San Clemente Canyon

    Unit 5 consists of 16 ac (7 ha) of land made up of 16 ac (7 ha) of 
land owned by the California Department of Transportation and less than 
1 ac (<1 ha) of private land within the boundaries of the City of San 
Diego. This unit is located in the western portion of San Clemente 
Canyon, and begins near Clairemont Mesa Boulevard and continues east to 
the boundary of MCAS Miramar, in San Diego County, California. We 
consider this unit as a separate unit from the other part of San 
Clemente Canyon because the Sim J. Harris aggregate mine acts as a 
barrier to the physical and biotic continuity between the two portions 
of the canyon. This portion of the canyon is wetter and contains more 
riparian habitat than the eastern portion of San Clemente Canyon in 
Unit 4 and is one of few areas of Monardella viminea habitat where 
riparian vegetation persists (Rebman and Dossey 2006a, p. 22). The 
western portion of San Clemente Canyon (where Unit 5 is located) is 
essential to the recovery of the species because it contains the PCE 
and consists of over 500 individuals of M. viminea (Tierra Data 2011, 
p. 12). The habitat in this unit provides redundancy and resiliency for 
M. viminea, and since not all areas of this unit are occupied by M. 
viminea (i.e., the unit is occupied, although there are areas such as 
within the canyon where plants are not currently growing), this unit 
provides space for the growth and expansion of the species. 
Additionally, Unit 5 is essential to recovery because it is made up of 
several separate sites along the drainage where groups of naturally 
occurring M. viminea plants have been reported in a configuration that 
will likely contribute to gene exchange via pollinators. This unit 
contains the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of M. viminea, including riparian channels with a natural 
hydrological regime (PCE section (1)), ephemeral drainages made up of 
rocky or sandy alluvium (PCE section (3)), and surrounding vegetation 
that provides semi-open foliar cover (PCE section (2)). The PCE in this 
unit may require special management considerations or protection. The 
historical flow regime and flooding from the upper portion of the 
canyon to this unit is prevented by the Sim J. Harris aggregate mine. 
Therefore, in the future, this unit may require management to prevent 
overgrowth of annual species that would otherwise be scoured by 
periodic flooding. Please see the Special Management Considerations or 
Protection--Monardella viminea section of this proposed rule for a 
discussion of the threats to M. viminea habitat and potential 
management considerations. We are considering exclusion of a portion of 
Unit 5 (<1 ac (<1 ha)) from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act that is covered by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan under the 
MSCP; see Considered Exclusions--Monardella viminea section of this 
proposed rule for more information.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have 
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th 
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when 
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we 
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, 
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected 
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role 
for the species.
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, 
we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 
our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent

[[Page 33910]]

alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid 
the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' 
(at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during 
consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions may affect subsequently listed species or designated 
critical habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect Monardella viminea or its 
designated critical habitat require section 7 consultation under the 
Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands requiring a 
Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a 
permit from us under section 10 of the Act) or involving some other 
Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency) are subject to the section 7 consultation 
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical 
habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are 
not Federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section 
7 consultations.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical and 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for Monardella viminea. As 
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-
history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat designated for 
Monardella viminea, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, should result in consultation with the Service. These 
activities include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would alter channel morphology or geometry and 
resultant hydrology to a degree that appreciably reduces the value of 
critical habitat for either the long-term survival or recovery of the 
species. Such activities could include, but are not limited to: Water 
impoundment, channelization, or diversion; road and bridge construction 
(including instream structures); licensing, relicensing, or operation 
of dams or other water impoundments; and mining and other removal or 
deposition of materials. Examples of effects these activities may have 
on Monardella viminea habitat include (but are not limited to) a 
permanent removal or reduction of suitable space for individual and 
population growth or an increase in woody or herbaceous ground cover 
(due to increased moisture levels in soil occupied by the species) that 
affects the availability of suitable habitat for reproduction and 
survival of M. viminea.
    (2) Actions that would significantly directly or indirectly affect 
pollinator abundance or efficacy to a degree that appreciably reduces 
the value of the critical habitat for the long-term survival or 
recovery of the species. Such activities include, but are not limited 
to: Destruction of critical habitat that contains pollinators; 
introduction of nonnative insects into designated critical habitat that 
could compete with native pollinators; clearing or trimming of other 
native vegetation in designated critical habitat in a manner that 
diminishes appreciably its utility to support Monardella viminea 
pollinators (such as clearing vegetation for fuels control); and 
application of pesticides.
    (3) Actions that would significantly alter sediment deposition 
patterns and rates within a stream channel to a degree that appreciably 
reduces the value of the critical habitat for the long-term survival or 
recovery of the species. Such activities include, but are not limited 
to: Excessive sedimentation from road construction; excessive 
recreational trail use; residential, commercial, and industrial 
development; aggregate mining; and other watershed and floodplain 
disturbances. These activities may reduce the amount and distribution 
of suitable habitat for individual and population growth, and reduce or 
change habitat quality for reproduction, germination, and development.
    (4) Actions that would significantly alter biotic features to a 
degree that appreciably reduces the value of the critical habitat for 
both the long-term survival or the recovery of the species. Such 
activities include, but are not limited to, modifying the habitats that 
support Monardella viminea to include coastal sage scrub, riparian 
scrub, and (in some areas) riparian oak woodland. Proposals for 
application of herbicides or fire retardant chemicals could also 
necessitate consultation. These activities may reduce the amount or 
quality of suitable habitat for individuals and populations; reduce or 
change sites for reproduction and development; or reduce the quality of 
water, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements.
    (5) Actions that could contribute to the introduction or support of 
nonnative species into critical habitat to a degree that appreciably 
reduces the value of the critical habitat for both the long-term 
survival or recovery of Monardella viminea. Such activities include, 
but are not limited to: Landscape disturbance or plant introductions 
that result in increased numbers of individuals and taxa of nonnative 
species for landscape or erosion control purposes, or addition of 
nutrients that would fertilize nonnative plant taxa. These activities 
may reduce the suitable space for individual and population growth, 
reduce or change sites for reproduction and development of offspring, 
and introduce or support nonnative plant taxa that compete with M. 
viminea.

[[Page 33911]]

Exemptions

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

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with Federally listed species. We analyzed 
the INRMP developed by MCAS Miramar, the only military installation 
located within the range of the proposed critical habitat designation 
for Monardella viminea, to determine if the military lands are exempt 
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (MCAS Miramar)
    Marine Corps Air Station Miramar has an approved INRMP (Gene Stout 
and Associates 2006) that addresses Monardella viminea, and the Marine 
Corps has committed to work closely with us and CDFG to continually 
refine the existing INRMP as part of the Sikes Act's INRMP review 
process. In accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the 
Secretary has determined that conservation efforts identified in the 
INRMP provide a benefit to M. viminea occurring on MCAS Miramar (see 
the following section that details this determination). Therefore, the 
1,546 ac (625 ha) of habitat occupied by M. viminea at the time of 
listing on which are found the physical or biological features 
essential to its conservation and thus qualified for consideration as 
critical habitat on MCAS Miramar are exempt from this critical habitat 
designation for M. viminea under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. The 
rationale for this exemption is the same as it was for the 2006 
designation (71 FR 65662; November 8, 2006).
    In the previous final critical habitat designation for Monardella 
viminea, we exempted MCAS Miramar from the designation of critical 
habitat (71 FR 65662; November 8, 2006). We based this decision on the 
conservation benefits to M. viminea identified in the INRMP developed 
by MCAS Miramar in May 2000, and the updated INRMP prepared by MCAS 
Miramar in October 2006 (Gene Stout and Associates et al. 2006). We 
determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP provide a 
benefit to M. viminea on MCAS Miramar (Gene Stout and Associates et al. 
2006, Section 7, p. 17). We reaffirm that continued conservation 
efforts on MCAS Miramar provide a benefit to M. viminea. Therefore, 
lands containing features essential to the conservation of M. viminea 
on this installation are exempt from this proposed critical habitat 
designation for M. viminea under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
    Provisions in the INRMP for MCAS Miramar benefit Monardella viminea 
by requiring efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to this species and 
riparian watersheds. All M. viminea suitable habitat is managed as 
specified for Level 1 or Level 2 Habitat Management Areas defined by 
the INRMP (Kassebaum 2010, pers. comm.). Under the INRMP, Level I 
Management Areas receive the highest conservation priority of the 
various Management Areas on MCAS Miramar. The conservation of 
watersheds in the Level I Management Areas is achieved through:
    (1) Education of base personnel;
    (2) Implementation of proactive measures that help avoid accidental 
impacts (such as signs and fencing);
    (3) Development of procedures to respond to and restore accidental 
impacts; and
    (4) Monitoring of M. viminea occurrences on MCAS Miramar (Gene 
Stout and Associates et al. 2006, Section 7, pp. 17-23).
    Additionally, MCAS Miramar's environmental security staff reviews 
projects and enforces existing regulations and base orders that avoid 
and minimize impacts to natural resources, including M. viminea and its 
habitat. The INRMP for MCAS Miramar provides a benefit to M. viminea 
and includes measures designed to prevent degradation or destruction of 
the species' riparian habitat.
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that Monardella viminea 
habitat on MCAS Miramar is subject to the MCAS Miramar INRMP and that 
conservation efforts identified in the INRMP provide and will continue 
to provide a benefit to M. viminea occurring in habitats within and 
adjacent to MCAS Miramar. Therefore, lands within this installation are 
exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the 
Act. We are not including approximately 1,546 ac (625 ha) of habitat in 
this proposed critical habitat designation because of this exemption.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best 
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic 
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may 
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on 
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such 
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. 
In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the 
legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion 
regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any 
factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may exercise his 
discretion to

[[Page 33912]]

exclude a specific area from critical habitat designation if the 
determination is made that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion. The Secretary may exercise discretion to 
exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic 
impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. 
In considering whether to exercise discretion to exclude a particular 
area from the designation, we identify the benefits of including the 
area in the designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area 
from the designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary 
may exercise his discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion 
would not result in the extinction of the species.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides 
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would 
provide.
    In the case of Monardella viminea, the benefits of critical habitat 
include public awareness of M. viminea presence and the species' 
critical habitat and the importance of protecting that habitat, and in 
cases where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for M. 
viminea due to the prohibition against adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat.
    When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when 
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of 
factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical and 
biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a 
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the 
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and 
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
adapted in the future in response to new information.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result 
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
    The Secretary is considering whether to exercise discretion to 
exclude certain lands from critical habitat. Based on the information 
provided by entities seeking exclusion, as well as any additional 
public comments we receive, we will evaluate whether certain lands are 
appropriate for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis indicates that the 
benefits of excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the 
benefits of designating those lands as critical habitat, then the 
Secretary may exercise his discretion to exclude the lands from the 
final designation.
    We are considering whether to exercise the delegated discretion of 
the Secretary to exclude the areas listed below either because:
    (1) Their value for conservation will be preserved for the 
foreseeable future by existing protective actions, or
    (2) They are appropriate for exclusion under the ``other relevant 
factor'' provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    We specifically request comments on the inclusion or exclusion of 
these areas, as listed in Table 4. In the paragraphs below, we provide 
a preliminary analysis of these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

 Table 4--Areas Being Considered for Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of
 the Act From This Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Monardella
                               viminea.**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Area Covered by      Area Covered by
                                 City of San Diego   County of San Diego
             Unit*              Subarea Plan (acres  Subarea Plan (acres
                                    (hectares))          (hectares))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sycamore Canyon............              47 (19)              36 (15)
2. West Sycamore Canyon.......               21 (9)                0 (0)
3. Spring Canyon..............              97 (39)                0 (0)
4. East San Clemente Canyon...                7 (3)                0 (0)
5. West San Clemente Canyon...            < 1 (< 1)                0 (0)
                               -----------------------------------------
Total ***.....................             172 (70)              36 (15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.
** The areas being considered for exclusion in this table are included
  in Tables 1 and 2 above.
*** All areas that are covered by the HCPs (City of San Diego Subarea
  Plan under the MSCP and County of San Diego Subarea Plan under the
  MSCP) are considered for exclusion.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related 
factors.
    We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as 
soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and 
comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be 
available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). During 
the development of a final designation, we will consider economic 
impacts, public comments, and other

[[Page 33913]]

new information, and areas may be excluded from the final critical 
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national 
security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have 
exempted from the designation of critical habitat those lands on MCAS 
Miramar because the base has an approved INRMP which the Marine Corps 
is implementing and which we have concluded provides a benefit to 
Monardella viminea.
    There are no other lands within the proposed designation of 
critical habitat that are owned or managed by the Department of 
Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. 
Consequently, the Secretary is not considering exercising his 
discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on 
impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We 
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.
Land and Resource Management Plans, Conservation Plans, or Agreements 
Based on Conservation Partnerships
    We consider whether a current land management or conservation plan 
(HCPs as well as other types) provides adequate management or 
protection for critical habitat of Monardella viminea. In particular, 
we consider whether:
    (1) The plan is complete and provides the same or better level of 
protection from adverse modification or destruction than is likely to 
result from a consultation under section 7 of the Act;
    (2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the 
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or 
regulations; and
    (3) The plan provides conservation strategies and measures 
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
    We are considering exercising our delegated discretion to exclude 
proposed critical habitat covered by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan 
and the County of San Diego Subarea Plan under the San Diego Multiple 
Species Conservation Program. Our review of the plans under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act is consistent with our commitments to the City and 
County in the Implementing Agreements (IA) to consider the plans in 
future designations of critical habitat for covered species (Service et 
al. 1997 p. 23 (City of San Diego IA and Service et al. 1998 p. 23 
(County of San Diego IA). We will consider the above criteria and other 
relevant factors in making a decision under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)--County of San 
Diego Subarea Plan and City of San Diego Subarea Plan

    The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive 
habitat conservation planning program that encompasses 582,243 (235,626 
ha) acres within 12 jurisdictions of southwestern San Diego County. The 
MSCP is a subregional plan that identifies the conservation needs of 85 
Federally listed and sensitive species, including Monardella viminea, 
and serves as the basis for development of subarea plans by each 
jurisdiction in support of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits. The subregional 
MSCP identifies where mitigation activities should be focused, such 
that upon full implementation of the subarea plans approximately 
171,920 ac (69,574 ha) of the 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) MSCP plan area 
will be preserved and managed for covered species. Conservation of 
Monardella viminea is addressed in the sub-regional plan, and in the 
City of San Diego and County of San Diego Subarea Plans that we are 
considering for exclusion in this rule.
    The subregional MSCP identifies where mitigation activities should 
be focused, such that upon completion approximately 171,920 ac (69,574 
ha) of the 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) MSCP plan area will be preserved for 
conservation (MSCP 1998, pp. 2-1, and 4-2 to 4-4).
    The City and County Subarea Plans identify areas where mitigation 
activities should be focused to assemble its preserve areas (i.e., MHPA 
or PAMA). Those areas of the MSCP preserve that are already conserved, 
as well as those areas that are designated for inclusion in the 
preserve under the plan, are referred to as the ``preserve area'' in 
this proposed revised critical habitat designation. When the preserve 
is completed, the public sector (i.e., Federal, State, and local 
government, and general public) will have contributed 108,750 ac 
(44,010 ha) (63.3 percent) to the preserve, of which 81,750 ac (33,083 
ha) (48 percent) was existing public land when the MSCP was 
established, and 27,000 ac (10,927 ha) (16 percent) will have been 
acquired. At completion, the private sector will have contributed 
63,170 ac (25,564 ha) (37 percent) to the preserve as part of the 
development process, either through avoidance of impacts or as 
compensatory mitigation for impacts to biological resources outside the 
preserve. Currently, and in the future, Federal and State governments, 
local jurisdictions and special districts, and managers of privately 
owned land will manage and monitor their land in the preserve for 
species and habitat protection (MSCP 1998, pp. 2-1, and 4-2 to 4-4).
    The City and County Subarea Plans include multiple conservation 
measures that provide benefits to Monardella viminea. The MSCP requires 
the City and the County to develop framework and site specific 
management plans, subject to the review and approval of the Service and 
CDFG, to guide the management of all preserve land under City and 
County control. Currently, the framework plans are in place, and the 
County of San Diego has developed a site-specific management plan for 
the one area under its ownership that contains M. viminea (Sycamore 
Canyon), which incorporates requirements to monitor and adaptively 
manage M. viminea habitat over time. In contrast, though the City of 
San Diego has conserved 100 percent of M. viminea occurrences on City-
owned lands within preserve areas (City of San Diego 1997, p. 127), it 
has not developed any site-specific management plan for any lands 
containing M. viminea, including the lands we are proposing as critical 
habitat. Any M. viminea occurrences that occur on private lands that 
have not been conserved by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan receive 
no management or protection other than that provided by the ESL (almost 
all occurrences that occur within the City of San Diego's MSCP Subarea 
Plan area have been protected in MSCP reserves; see Factor D discussion 
above). The ESL provides

[[Page 33914]]

protection for sensitive biological resources (including Monardella 
viminea and its habitat), by ensuring that development occurs ``in a 
manner that protects the overall quality of the resources and the 
natural and topographic character of the area, encourages a sensitive 
form of development, retains biodiversity and interconnected habitats, 
maximizes physical and visual public access to and along the shoreline, 
and reduces hazards due to flooding in specific areas while minimizing 
the need for construction of flood control facilities.'' The ESL was 
designed to act as an implementing tool for the City of San Diego 
Subarea Plan (City of San Diego 1997, p. 98).
    The MSCP also provides for a biological monitoring program, and 
Monardella viminea is identified as a first priority species for field 
monitoring under both the City and County Subarea Plans. Under the 
County's subarea plan, Group A plant species, including M. viminea, are 
conserved following guidelines outlined by the County's Biological 
Mitigation Ordinance, which uses a process that:
    (1) Requires avoidance to the maximum extent feasible;
    (2) Allows for a maximum 20 percent encroachment into a population 
if total avoidance is not feasible; and
    (3) Requires mitigation at the 1:1 to 3:1 (in kind) for impacts if 
avoidance and minimization of impacts would result in no reasonable use 
of the property.
    We are considering exercising our delegated discretion to exclude 
from critical habitat a portion of Unit 1 covered by the County of San 
Diego Subarea Plan under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This area 
encompasses approximately 36 ac (15 ha) of land. We are also 
considering exercising our delegated discretion to exclude from 
critical habitat portions of Units 1-5 covered by the City of San Diego 
Subarea Plan under section 4(b)(2) of the act. This area encompasses 
172 ac (70 ha) of land. All areas that are covered by the HCPs (City of 
San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP and County of San Diego Subarea 
Plan under the MSCP) are considered for exclusion.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers 
to comment during this public comment period on our specific 
assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical 
habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during 
this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of the 
final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from 
this proposal.

Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. We must receive your request within 45 
days after the date of this Federal Register publication. Send your 
request to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are 
requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, 
as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal 
Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under 
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB bases its 
determination upon the following four criteria:
    (1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA 
amended RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary 
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding. 
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft 
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 
Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the 
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the 
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft 
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register 
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We 
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. We 
have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion of the 
draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and 
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will 
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on 
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for 
public comment.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. We do not expect the designation of this proposed 
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, 
or use, because there are no energy or distribution facilities within 
the area proposed as critical habitat. Therefore, this action is not a 
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct 
our economic analysis, and

[[Page 33915]]

review and revise this assessment as warranted.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Small governments would be affected 
only to the extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or 
other authorized activities must ensure that their actions would not 
adversely affect the critical habitat. Therefore, a Small Government 
Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further evaluate this 
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this 
assessment if appropriate.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), 
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating 
critical habitat for Monardella viminea in a takings implications 
assessment. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner 
actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it 
preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of 
incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal 
funding or permits to go forward. The takings implications assessment 
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for M. viminea 
would not pose significant takings implications for lands within or 
affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this 
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A 
Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of 
the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested 
information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed 
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies 
in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently 
occupied by Monardella viminea would impose no additional restrictions 
to those currently in place and, therefore, has little incremental 
impact on State and local governments and their activities. The 
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the 
elements of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation 
of the species are specifically identified. This information does not 
alter where and what Federally sponsored activities may occur. However, 
it may assist these local governments in long-range planning (rather 
than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to 
occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), it 
has been determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial 
system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses 
standard property descriptions and identifies the elements of physical 
and biological features essential to the conservation of Monardella 
viminea within the designated areas to assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of the species.

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

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

[[Page 33916]]

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

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating critical 
habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes.
    We have determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied by 
Monardella viminea that contain the features essential for conservation 
of the species, and no Tribal lands unoccupied by M. viminea that are 
essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we have not 
proposed designation of critical habitat for M. viminea on Tribal 
lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

    2. In Sec.  17.12(h), revise the entry for ``Monardella linoides 
ssp. viminea'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' in the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family            Status      When listed    Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                               habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Flowering Plants
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Monardella viminea...............  Willowy monardella..  U.S.A. (CA), Mexico  Lamiaceae..........  E                       649     17.96(a)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) by revising critical habitat 
for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (willowy monardella) under Family 
Lamiaceae to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Lamiaceae: Monardella viminea (willowy monardella)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for San Diego County, 
California, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent element of the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
Monardella viminea is riparian channels with ephemeral drainages and 
adjacent floodplains:
    (i) With a natural hydrological regime, in which:
    (A) Water flows only after peak seasonal rainstorms;
    (B) High runoff events periodically scour riparian vegetation and 
redistribute alluvial material to create new stream channels, benches, 
and sandbars; and
    (C) Water flows for usually less than 48 hours after a rain event, 
without long-term standing water;
    (ii) With surrounding vegetation that provides semi-open, foliar 
cover with:
    (A) Little or no herbaceous understory;

[[Page 33917]]

    (B) Little to no canopy cover;
    (C) Open ground cover, less than half of which is herbaceous 
vegetation cover;
    (D) Some shrub cover; and
    (E) An association of other plants, including Eriogonum 
fasciculatum (California buckwheat) and Baccharis sarothroides (broom 
baccharis);
    (iii) That contain ephemeral drainages that:
    (A) Are made up of coarse, rocky, or sandy alluvium; and
    (B) Contain terraced floodplains, terraced secondary benches, 
stabilized sandbars, channel banks, or sandy washes; and
    (iv) That have soil with high sand content, typically characterized 
by sediment and cobble deposits, and further characterized by a high 
content of coarse, sandy grains and low content of silt and clay.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangle maps. 
Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse 
Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North American Datum (NAD) 1983 coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Monardella 
viminea follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 33918]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.038


[[Page 33919]]


    (6) Unit 1: Sycamore Canyon and West Sycamore Canyon, San Diego 
County, California.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 1.]
    (ii) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 2.]
    (iii) Note: Map of Unit 1 and Unit 2, Sycamore Canyon and West 
Sycamore Canyon, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.039


[[Page 33920]]


    (7) Units 3 and 4: Spring Canyon and East San Clemente Canyon, San 
Diego County, California.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 3.]
    (ii) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 4.]
    (iii) Note: Map of Unit 3 and Unit 4, Spring Canyon and East San 
Clemente Canyon, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.040


[[Page 33921]]


    (8) Unit 5: West San Clemente Canyon, San Diego County, California.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 5.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, West San Clemente Canyon, follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.041
    
* * * * *

    Dated: May 25, 2011.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-13912 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C