[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 154 (Tuesday, August 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48142-48170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19352]



[[Page 48141]]

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 154

August 11, 2015

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Diplacus vandenbergensis (Vandenberg Monkeyflower); Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 48142]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0049; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ33


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Diplacus vandenbergensis (Vandenberg Monkeyflower)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for Diplacus vandenbergensis (Vandenberg monkeyflower) 
under the Endangered Species Act (Act). In total, approximately 5,755 
acres (2,329 hectares) in Santa Barbara County, California, fall within 
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The effect of this 
regulation is to designate critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower 
under the Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/. Comments and 
materials we received, as well as some supporting documentation we used 
in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments, materials, and documentation that we 
considered in this rulemaking will be available by appointment, during 
normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish 
and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; 
telephone 805-644-1766; facsimile 805-644-3958.
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the decision record for this critical habitat 
designation and are available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0049, and at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 
(http://www.fws.gov/ventura) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any 
additional tools or supporting information that we developed for this 
critical habitat designation will also be available at the Field Office 
set out above, and may also be included in the preamble and at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 493 
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805-644-1766; 
facsimile 805-644-3958. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), any species that is 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species requires critical 
habitat to be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only 
be completed by issuing a rule.
    On August 26, 2014, we published in the Federal Register the final 
rule to list Vandenberg monkeyflower as an endangered species under the 
Act (79 FR 50844). This is a final rule to designate critical habitat 
for Vandenberg monkeyflower. The critical habitat areas we are 
designating in this rule constitute our current best assessment of the 
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Vandenberg 
monkeyflower. In total, we are designating as critical habitat 
approximately 5,755 acres (ac) (2,329 hectares (ha)) of land in four 
units for the species.
    We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of 
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared an 
incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis, which, 
together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, we consider 
our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat 
designation and related factors (Industrial Economic, Incorporated 
(IEc) 2014, entire). The analysis, dated March 19, 2014, was made 
available for public comment from May 6, 2014, through June 5, 2014 (79 
FR 25797). The DEA addressed probable economic impacts of critical 
habitat designation for Vandenberg monkeyflower. Following the close of 
the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted 
during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the 
probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat 
designation. We have incorporated comments received into this final 
determination.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data and analyses. We requested opinions from three knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical 
assumptions and analysis, and whether or not we had used the best 
available information. We received comments from two of the peer 
reviewers on the proposed critical habitat rule. These peer reviewers 
generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided 
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this 
final rule. Information we received from peer review is incorporated in 
this final revised designation. We also considered all comments and 
information we received from the public during the comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

    The proposed listing rule for Vandenberg monkeyflower (78 FR 64840; 
October 29, 2013) contains a detailed description of previous Federal 
actions concerning this species.
    On October 29, 2013, we published in the Federal Register a 
proposed critical habitat designation for Vandenberg monkeyflower (78 
FR 64446). On May 6, 2014, we revised the proposed critical habitat 
designation and announced the availability of our draft economic 
analysis (DEA) (79 FR 25797).

 From October 29, 2013, Proposed Rule

    In this final critical habitat designation, we first make final the 
minor changes that we proposed in the document that published in the 
Federal Register on May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25797). At that time, we 
proposed to increase the designation (from that proposed on October 29, 
2013 (78 FR 64446)), by approximately 24 ac (10 ha). This increase 
occurred in Unit 3 (Encina) as a result of new information received 
from several commenters who pointed out that we had omitted a portion 
of a parcel along the boundaries of this unit that contained the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Second, in coordination with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Federal 
Penitentiary Complex at Lompoc (Lompoc Penitentiary), we conducted a 
visual inspection of the vegetation communities and existing land uses 
within proposed critical habitat Unit 1 (Vandenberg). Subsequently, we 
have reduced the size of this unit because we found that a portion of 
the proposed critical habitat area did not contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower. Unit 1 occurs exclusively on lands owned and managed by 
the Department of Justice. As a result of our evaluation, Unit 1 has

[[Page 48143]]

decreased by 54 ac (22 ha) from 277 ac (112 ha) proposed as critical 
habitat on October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64446), to 223 ac (90 ha) as 
described in this final rule. Specifically, we eliminated:
    (1) Flat lands in the eastern portion of the unit (i.e., lands east 
of a drainage that separates the eastern and western areas in this 
unit) at the break in slope and below 100 feet (ft) (30 meters (m)) in 
elevation.
    (2) Flat lands in the western portion of the unit below 100 ft (30 
m) in elevation (noting that the eastern and western portions are 
divided by a drainage), with the exception of the extreme western 
portion of the unit where we eliminated lands below 160 ft (49 m) in 
elevation where there is a break in slope, because the topography below 
160 ft (49 m) flattens out in an alluvial floodplain that is used as a 
cattle pasture.
    We are also recognizing other changes and clarifications 
recommended by one peer reviewer and the public specifically related to 
two aspects of the species' biology: Seed dispersal and pollinator 
foraging distances. Both of these discussions are revised in full and 
described in the ``Physical or Biological Features--Contiguous 
Chaparral Habitat'' and ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' 
sections of this rule.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or 
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action 
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but 
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary 
constituent elements (PCEs) such as roost sites, nesting grounds, 
seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential 
to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are 
those specific elements of the physical or biological features that 
provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but 
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the 
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat 
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited 
to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of 
the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include articles in peer-reviewed 
journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other 
unpublished materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are

[[Page 48144]]

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) with respect to wildlife, section 9 of the Act's 
prohibitions on taking any individual of the species, including taking 
caused by actions that affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted 
projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical 
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. 
These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to 
recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made 
on the basis of the best available information at the time of 
designation will not control the direction and substance of future 
recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time 
of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with 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 by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may 
require special management considerations or protection. These include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential 
for Vandenberg monkeyflower from studies of this species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section 
of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the 
Federal Register on October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64446), and in the 
information presented below. Additional information can be found in the 
final listing rule published on August 26, 2014, in the Federal 
Register (79 FR 50844). We have determined that Vandenberg monkeyflower 
requires the following physical or biological features:
Canopy Openings
    Vandenberg monkeyflower only occurs in sandy openings (canopy gaps) 
within dominant vegetation consisting of Burton Mesa chaparral (see the 
``Background'' section in the proposed listing rule published October 
29, 2013 (78 FR 64840), in the Federal Register). The sunny openings 
provide the space needed for individual and population growth, 
including sites for germination, reproduction, seed dispersal, seed 
banks, and pollination.
    Canopy gaps are important for seed germination and seedling 
establishment, and for maintaining the seed banks of many chaparral 
species (Davis et al. 1989, pp. 60-64; Zammit and Zedler 1994, pp. 11-
13). As the canopy closes and grows in height, the understory is 
generally bare, with most herbs restricted to remaining canopy gaps 
(Van Dyke et al. 2001, p. 9). Because gaps receive more light, soil 
temperatures may be as much as 23 [deg]C (73 [deg]F) higher than under 
the surrounding shrub canopy (Christensen and Muller 1975b, p. 50). 
Such temperatures are high enough to stimulate seed germination in many 
species (for example, Helianthemum scoparium (rush-rose)) (Christensen 
and Muller 1975a, p. 77). Additionally, herbivory is less pronounced in 
openings than under or near the canopy (Halligan 1973, pp. 430-432; 
Christensen and Muller 1975b, p. 53; Davis and Mooney 1985, p. 528). 
Furthermore, allelopathic (biochemical) effects of the shrub canopy are 
probably reduced in openings (Muller et al. 1968, pp. 227-230).
    Numerous studies have recognized canopy gaps in mature chaparral as 
important microhabitats where some subshrubs and herbs (such as 
Vandenberg monkeyflower) persist between fires (Horton and Kraebel 
1955, pp. 258-261; Vogl and Schorr 1972, pp. 1182-1187; Keeley et al. 
1981, pp. 1615-1617; Davis et al. 1989, p. 64). Additionally, many 
chaparral plants have characteristics that promote reestablishment 
after fires. Thus, fire plays a significant role in maintaining 
chaparral community heterogeneity and in nutrient cycling, and its role 
has been extensively documented (see Christensen and Muller 1975a, b; 
Keeley 1987) (See ``Factor A--Anthropogenic Fire'' section in the 
proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; October 29, 2013).
    When fire occurs, it clears out aboveground living vegetation and 
dead wood, deposits nutrient-rich ash, and makes space and sunlight 
available for seedling establishment. High numbers of herbaceous 
annuals and perennials appear shortly after fire has cleared away the 
tall, dense shrubs (Gevirtz et al. 2007, p. 58). Many of these fire-
followers decline over time after a fire, although some persist in 
small numbers for decades after their peak post-fire densities (Gevirtz 
et al. 2007, p. 103). In the first few years, habitat may appear as 
coastal scrub rather than chaparral, both in structure and in the 
species present (e.g., (Salvia mellifera) black sage, (Artemisia 
californica) California sagebrush, (Frangula californica) coffee berry, 
(Baccharis pilularis) coyote brush, Toxicodendron diversilobum (poison 
oak)). Gradually, however, (Arctostaphylos spp.) manzanita, (Ceanothus 
spp.) ceanothus, (Adenostoma fasciculatum) chamise, and other species 
overtop the early species and come to dominate the landscape. The 
response of Vandenberg monkeyflower to fire is not currently known; 
however, because this species occurs within maritime chaparral, it is 
likely adapted to a naturally occurring fire regime of the Burton Mesa. 
Because Vandenberg monkeyflower occurs within the canopy gaps of Burton 
Mesa chaparral, these gaps are important for the plants' persistence 
between fire events. As the canopy closes with dominant vegetation, the 
gaps provide the space for annuals small in stature, such as Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, to grow and reproduce. Therefore, we identify canopy gaps 
to be a physical or biological feature for Vandenberg monkeyflower.
Loose Sandy Soils
    The gaps in the canopy where this species occurs consist of loose, 
sandy soils. The Burton Mesa dune sheet is comprised of layers of wind-
blown sand, each of which was deposited during different geologic time 
periods. The oldest dune deposits are referred to as the Orcutt 
``paleodunes,'' and were deposited in the Santa Maria Basin during the 
mid-Pleistocene era up to 200,000 years ago (Johnson 1983 in Hunt 1993, 
p. 14). These dunes are old enough to have developed a soil profile, 
classified as Tangair and Narlon soils (Soil Conservation Service 
1972). Subsurface soils are typically hardened by iron oxides, though 
surface exposures, where they occur, are

[[Page 48145]]

commonly composed of loose sand (Hunt 1993, p. 15).
    These oldest dune deposits have been buried beneath more recent 
dunes that were wind-deposited approximately 10,000 to 25,000 to as 
much as 125,000 years ago (Orme and Tchakerian 1986, pp. 155-156; 
Johnson 1983, in Hunt 1993, p. 15). Contributing to the formation of 
these vast dune systems was a rapid fall in sea level approximately 
18,000 years ago, perhaps as much as 300 ft (91 m) below the present 
shoreline, which exposed vast quantities of sediment that were later 
transported miles inland by onshore winds (Hunt 1993, p. 16).
    The more recent dune deposits comprise the bulk of the dunes found 
on Burton Mesa. These newer dunes on Burton Mesa are composed of poorly 
consolidated to unconsolidated red to yellow sands with a clay-enriched 
B-horizon profile; the substratum is generally a dense, cemented sand 
layer (Hunt 1993 p. 16). This cemented layer may contribute to the 
water-holding capacity of the soil, which in turn affects the types of 
plants and vegetation communities observed. Additionally, both the 
older and newer dune deposits have substrates with significantly higher 
proportions of fine sands relative to even more recent sand deposits, 
thus forming a dense soil (Hunt 1993, p. 16). Topsoil in Burton Mesa is 
uniformly medium sand, but the depth of soil to bedrock varies 
throughout the mesa, and several soil types are present (Davis et al. 
1988, pp. 170-171). The most widespread soils are Marina, Tangair, and 
Narlon sands; however, other soil types, such as Arnold Sand, Botella 
Loam, Terrace Escarpments, and Gullied Land, are present on Burton Mesa 
where Vandenberg monkeyflower grows (Soil Conservation Service 1972).
    This species appears more closely tied to loose, sandy soil than to 
a specific soil type. Therefore, because Vandenberg monkeyflower occurs 
on all soil types listed above, but appears to be more closely 
associated with loose, sandy soils regardless of the soil type, we 
identify loose, sandy soils on Burton Mesa as a physical or biological 
feature for Vandenberg monkeyflower.
Contiguous Chaparral Habitat
    The structure of the chaparral habitat on Burton Mesa is a mosaic 
of maritime chaparral vegetation (which includes maritime chaparral and 
maritime chaparral mixed with coastal scrub, oak woodland, and small 
patches of native grasslands (Wilken and Wardlaw 2010, p. 2)) and sandy 
openings (canopy gaps) that varies from place to place (see 
Background--Habitat in the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; October 
29, 2013). The invasion of nonnative plants can directly alter the 
structure of this habitat by displacing native vegetation, including 
individuals of Vandenberg monkeyflower (see ``Factor A--Invasive, 
Nonnative Species'' section in the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; 
October 29, 2013)). Fragmentation of the habitat (due to invasive, 
nonnative plants) has negative effects on rare plant populations 
(Franklin et al. 2002, pp. 20-29; Alberts et al. 1993, pp. 103-110). 
Therefore, the presence of contiguous chaparral habitat on Burton Mesa 
is important for population growth of Vandenberg monkeyflower because 
it provides available habitat for seed dispersal and establishment.
    Seeds of this species are small and light in weight and short-
distance dispersal is achieved primarily by gravity but also by wind 
and water (Fraga in litt. 2012; Thompson 2005, p. 130) (see Life 
History section of the final listing rule (79 FR 50844) for additional 
discussion of literature related to seed dispersal). It is well-
accepted that, for most plant species, a small fraction of seed is 
subject to long-distance dispersal events. While these events occur 
infrequently, they can be important in dispersing seeds between 
populations, and from established populations to new sites with 
suitable habitat. Determining long-distance seed-dispersal distances 
for any species is challenging, however, because of the difficulty of 
observing and quantifying rare long-distance dispersal events. On 
Burton Mesa, the principal wind direction in all seasons is north-
northwest (Bowen and Inman 1966, p. 3; Cooper 1967, pp. 73-74; Hunt 
1993, p. 27), which could aid local dispersal of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower seeds after falling from the parent plant. Long-distance 
seed dispersal of other plant species can occur through high-velocity 
horizontal winds, as well as wind updrafts (Greene and Johnson 1995). 
Landscape fragmentation over time may reduce the ability of seeds to 
move longer distances (Cain et al. 2000, p. 1223; Trakhtenbrot et al. 
2005, p. 177), and, therefore, maintaining the integrity of the habitat 
is important to providing opportunities for the species to disperse 
across the landscape into suitable habitat patches. Wind updrafts could 
potentially carry seed from one suitable habitat patch to another 
across a fragmented landscape; while this may occur infrequently, it 
may be important in contributing to the long-term persistence of the 
species.
    Contiguous chaparral habitat on Burton Mesa is important for 
population growth of Vandenberg monkeyflower because it also provides 
habitat for insect pollinators. Pollinators move pollen from one flower 
to another predominantly within the same plant population, but they can 
move pollen to another plant population if it is close enough and the 
pollinator is capable of carrying the pollen across that distance. 
Annual Diplacus species have a variety of visitors, including insects, 
bees, and butterflies. Although no research has been done to determine 
the effectiveness of various pollinators for Vandenberg monkeyflower 
(Fraga in litt. 2012), based on observations of other small annual 
Diplacus species, small- to medium-sized solitary bees are likely an 
important class of pollinator. Therefore, because contiguous chaparral 
habitat on Burton Mesa provides habitat connectivity that ensures space 
for seed dispersal and establishment and movement of pollinators, we 
identify contiguous chaparral habitat as a physical or biological 
feature for Vandenberg monkeyflower.

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for Vandenberg Monkeyflower

    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower in areas occupied at the time 
of listing, focusing on the features' PCEs. Primary constituent 
elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological 
features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the PCEs specific to 
Vandenberg monkeyflower are:
    (1) Native maritime chaparral communities of Burton Mesa comprising 
maritime chaparral and maritime chaparral mixed with coastal scrub, oak 
woodland, and small patches of native grasslands. The mosaic structure 
of the native plant communities (arranged in a mosaic of dominant 
vegetation and sandy openings (canopy gaps)), may change spatially as a 
result of succession, and physical processes such as windblown sand and 
wildfire.
    (2) Loose sandy soils on Burton Mesa. As mapped by the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), these could include the 
following soil series: Arnold Sand, Marina Sand, Narlon Sand, Tangair 
Sand, Botella Loam, Terrace Escarpments, and Gullied Land.

[[Page 48146]]

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. All areas designated as critical habitat contain features 
that will require some level of management to address the current and 
future threats. In all units, special management may be required to 
ensure that the habitat is able to provide for the growth and 
reproduction of the species.
    The habitat where Vandenberg monkeyflower occurs faces threats from 
urban development, maintenance of existing utility pipelines, 
anthropogenic fire, unauthorized recreational activities, and most 
substantially the expansion of invasive, nonnative plants (see Factors 
A and E in the final listing rule published on August 26, 2014, in the 
Federal Register (79 FR 50844). Management activities that may reduce 
these threats include, but are not limited to: (1) Protecting from 
development lands that provide suitable habitat; (2) minimizing habitat 
fragmentation; (3) minimizing the spread of invasive, nonnative plants; 
(4) limiting authorized casual recreational use to existing paths and 
trails (as opposed to off-trail use that can spread invasive species to 
unaffected areas); (5) controlled burning; and (6) encouraging habitat 
restoration. These management activities would limit the impact to the 
physical or biological features for Vandenberg monkeyflower by 
decreasing the direct loss of habitat, maintaining the appropriate 
vegetation structure that provides the sandy openings that are 
necessary components of Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat, and minimizing 
the spread of invasive, nonnative plants to areas where they currently 
do not exist. Preserving large areas of contiguous suitable habitat 
throughout the range of the species should maintain the mosaic 
structure of the Burton Mesa chaparral that may be present at any given 
time, and maintain the genetic and demographic diversity of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain the 
features essential to the conservation of the species. If, after 
identifying these specific areas, we determine the areas are inadequate 
to ensure conservation of the species, in accordance with the Act and 
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we then consider 
whether designating additional areas outside of the geographic area 
occupied by the species are essential for the conservation of the 
species. We are not designating any areas outside the geographical area 
presently occupied by the species because its present range is 
sufficient to ensure the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    We used data from research published in peer-reviewed articles; 
reports and survey forms prepared for Federal, State, and local 
agencies and private corporations; site visits; regional Geographic 
Information Systems (GIS) layers, including soil and land use coverage; 
and data submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database 
(CNDDB). We also reviewed available information that pertains to the 
ecology, life history, and habitat requirements of this species. This 
material included information and data in peer-reviewed articles, 
reports of monitoring and habitat characterizations, reports submitted 
during section 7 consultations, and information received from local 
experts regarding Burton Mesa or Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    Determining specific areas that Vandenberg monkeyflower occupies is 
challenging because areas may be occupied by the species even if no 
plants appear above ground (i.e., resident seed banks may be present 
with little or no visible aboveground expression of the species) (see 
``Background--Life History'' section of the proposed listing rule 
published on October 29, 2013, in the Federal Register (78 FR 64840). 
Additionally, depending upon the climate and other annual variations in 
habitat conditions, the observed distribution of the species may 
shrink, temporarily disappear, or enlarge to encompass more locations 
on Burton Mesa. Because Vandenberg monkeyflower occurs in sandy soils 
within canopy gaps, and plant communities may undergo changes in which 
the gaps may shift spatially over time, the degree of cover that is 
provided by a vegetation type may favor the presence of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower or not. Furthermore, the way the current distribution of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower is mapped by the various agencies, 
organizations, or surveyors has varied depending on the scale at which 
occurrences of individuals were recorded (such as many small 
occurrences versus one large occurrence). Therefore, we considered 
areas as occupied where suitable habitat is present and contiguous with 
an extant occurrence of Vandenberg monkeyflower, but which may not 
currently contain aboveground individuals.
    We used a multistep process to delineate critical habitat 
boundaries.
    (1) Using Burton Mesa as a palette, we placed a minimum convex 
polygon around all nine extant occurrences and one potentially 
extirpated occurrence (Lower Santa Lucia Canyon) of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower based on CNDDB and herbarium records, as well as survey 
information not yet formalized in a database. This resulted in a data 
layer of Vandenberg monkeyflower's current and historical range on 
Burton Mesa (see ``Distribution of Vandenberg Monkeyflower'' section of 
the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; October 29, 2013). We 
eliminated the occurrence noted in 1931 that was identified 
approximately 5 mi (8 km) downwind and to the east in the Santa Rita 
Valley because there is no suitable habitat remaining at this site; 
thus, we consider this occurrence to be extirpated (see ``Historical 
Locations'' section in the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; October 
29, 2013).
    (2) We used GIS to overlay soil data (NRCS) across Burton Mesa, not 
excluding any soil types at this time because Vandenberg monkeyflower 
appears to be tied more closely to loose sandy soil than to a specific 
soil type. Therefore, to define suitable sandy soil where Vandenberg 
monkeyflower may occur, we included all soil types where the species is 
currently extant. These soil types include Arnold Sand, Marina Sand, 
Narlon Sand, Tangair Sand, Botella Loam, Terrace Escarpments, and 
Gullied Land. Additionally, we did not remove areas that comprise a 
small percentage of a different soil type if it was within a larger 
polygon of a suitable soil type because these areas were below the 
mapping resolution of the NRCS soil data we utilized.
    (3) We expanded the distance from each extant occurrence and one 
potentially extirpated occurrence up to 1 mi (1.6 km) beyond the known 
outer edge of each occurrence of Vandenberg monkeyflower for the 
following reasons:
    (a) We sought to maintain connectivity between occurrences of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower because seeds are primarily dispersed by 
gravity, along with wind, water, and small mammals. Habitat 
connectivity,

[[Page 48147]]

especially canopy gaps where the species occurs, provides the necessary 
space needed for reproduction, dispersal, and individual and population 
growth (see ``Physical or Biological Features'' section above).
    (b) A 1-mi (1.6-km) distance from each extant occurrence would 
provide adequate space for pollinator habitat. Vandenberg monkeyflower 
has a mixed mating system, and is dependent on pollinators to achieve 
seed production. As noted in the Life History section in the final 
listing rule published on August 26, 2014, in the Federal Register (79 
FR 50844), likely pollinators of Vandenberg monkeyflower include 
smaller solitary bees to medium and larger social bees. Therefore, 
general pollinator travel distances described in the literature can 
help determine a distance that would capture pollinator habitat most 
representative of invertebrate species that visit annual Vandenberg 
monkeyflower. Although pollinators typically fly distances that are in 
proportion to their body sizes, with larger pollinators flying longer 
distances (Greenleaf et al. 2007, pp. 593-596), a recent study by 
Zurbechen et al. (2010, entire) indicates that maximum flight distances 
of solitary bees have been underestimated and are greater than expected 
strictly based on body size. Therefore, if a pollinator can fly long 
distances, pollen transfer is also possible across these distances. 
Pollinators often focus on small, nearby areas where floral resources 
are abundant; however, occasional longer distance pollination may 
occur, especially in years when other floral resources are limited.
    Although Chesnut (in litt. 2014) observed a ``medium-sized'' 
bumblebee on Vandenberg monkeyflower, we have removed previous 
reference to bumblebee flight distances in this section because their 
large size (generally 0.6-0.9 in (15-23 mm)) makes it unlikely they 
would be a frequent pollinator of Vandenberg monkeyflower, and the 
reference was confusing to readers. Our review of other pollinator 
flight distance studies described in Zurbechen et al. (2010) indicates 
that honeybees (considered a medium- to large-sized bee, and which have 
been observed to visit Vandenberg monkeyflower) can fly upwards of 8.7 
mi (14,000 m). Based on observations of other small annual Diplacus 
species, small- and medium-sized solitary bees, which on average have 
shorter foraging distances than honeybees, are likely an important 
class of pollinator. Therefore, we use shorter foraging distances of 
the small- to medium-sized solitary bees. The foraging distances of 
these bees are highly variable, but range up to 0.75 mi (1,200 m)) 
(Zurbechen et al. 2010). We also note that, since flight distances have 
been measured from one direction from a hive or nest, over the course 
of several foraging trips bees could travel double that distance, 1.5 
mi (2,400 m) between two plant populations that are in opposite 
directions from a hive or nest. See additional discussion in this 
section under (d) below for a rationale of why other distance values 
are inappropriate.
    (c) Providing a critical habitat boundary that is 1 mi (1.6 km) 
from the nine extant occurrences and one potentially extirpated 
occurrence of Vandenberg monkeyflower captures most of the remaining 
native vegetation on Burton Mesa, from east of the developed area on 
Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) through La Purisima Mission State 
Historic Park (SHP) (see ``Distribution of Vandenberg Monkeyflower'' 
section of the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840)). In some instances, 
we expanded critical habitat farther than 1 mi (1.6 km) if the PCEs 
were contiguously present up-canyon. Expanding the boundary to 1 mi 
(1.6 km) created larger and contiguous blocks of suitable habitat, 
which have the highest likelihood of persisting through the 
environmental extremes that characterize California's climate, and of 
retaining the genetic variability to withstand future stressors (such 
as invasive, nonnative species or climate change). Additionally, 
contiguous blocks of habitat maintain connectivity, which is important 
because habitat fragmentation can result in loss of genetic variation 
(Young et al. 1996, pp. 413-417), has negative effects on biological 
populations (especially rare plants), and affects survival and recovery 
(Franklin et al. 2002, pp. 20-29; Alberts et al. 1993, pp. 103-110). 
Furthermore, fragmentation has been shown to disrupt plant-pollinator 
interactions and predator-prey interactions (Steffan-Dewenter and 
Tscharntke 1999, p. 437), alter seed germination percentages (Menges 
1991, pp. 158-164), and result in low fruit set (Jennerston 1988, pp. 
359-366; Cunningham 2000, pp. 1149-1152). Fragments are often not of 
sufficient size to support the natural diversity prevalent in an area 
and thus exhibit a decline in biodiversity (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, 
pp. 50-54).
    (d) We considered a critical habitat boundary at a distance of 0.5 
mi (0.8 km) from the nine extant locations and one potentially 
extirpated location. This shorter distance, however, did not maintain 
connectivity of occurrences, did not encompass the remaining native 
vegetation of Burton Mesa, and did not represent a sufficient distance 
to encompass long-distance seed dispersal or the distance that 
pollinators may travel. Except as described above in (c), we did not 
consider any distance larger than 1 mi (1.6 km) because the 1-mile 
distance captures the remaining native vegetation and the distribution 
of Vandenberg monkeyflower, and any distance greater than 1 mi (1.6 km) 
also captured habitat that is not suitable for this species. Therefore, 
the areas within our critical habitat boundaries include the range of 
plant communities and soil types in which Vandenberg monkeyflower is 
found, maintain connectivity of occurrences, and provide for the sandy 
openings mixed within the dominant vegetation. The delineated critical 
habitat contains the elements of physical and biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species.
    We did not include agricultural areas because, while the underlying 
dune sheet may be present depending on the land use practices, the 
topsoil would most likely not consist of loose sandy soil and the 
associated vegetation community would not exist. A few smaller 
agriculture and grazing plots exist within the Burton Mesa Ecological 
Reserve (Reserve), but agricultural lands mostly occur to the south and 
east of the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final 
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as 
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such 
lands lack physical or biological features necessary for Vandenberg 
monkeyflower. 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 final 
rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as 
critical habitat. Therefore, 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 or biological features in the 
adjacent critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information 
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the unit 
descriptions section of this document. We will make

[[Page 48148]]

the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based 
available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0049, on our Internet site http://www.fws.gov/ventura/, 
and at the field office responsible for the designation (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
    We are designating critical habitat on lands that we have 
determined are within the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing (occupied at the time of listing) and contain the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    Four units are designated based on sufficient elements of physical 
or biological features being present to support Vandenberg monkeyflower 
life-history processes. All of the units contain all of the identified 
elements of physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating four units as critical habitat for Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, all of which are considered occupied. The critical 
habitat areas described below constitute our best assessment at this 
time of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. Those four 
units are: (1) Vandenberg, (2) Santa Lucia, (3) Encina, and (4) La 
Purisima (see Table 1 below). Table 1 lists the critical habitat units 
and the area of each.

                                         Table 1--Designated Critical Habitat Units for Vandenberg Monkeyflower
                                         [Area estimates reflect all land within the critical habitat boundary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Land ownership (acres (hectares))                  Total area
               CH unit                             Unit name             ----------------------------------------------------------------      acres
                                                                              Federal          State       Local agency       Private       (hectares)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................  Vandenberg........................        223 (90)  ..............  ..............  ..............        223 (90)
2...................................  Santa Lucia.......................  ..............     1,422 (576)          10 (4)         52 (21)     1,484 (601)
3...................................  Encina............................  ..............     1,460 (591)         24 (10)       540 (218)     2,024 (819)
4...................................  La Purisima.......................  ..............     1,792 (725)           4 (2)        228 (92)     2,024 (819)
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \1\.......................  ..................................        223 (90)   4,674 (1,892)         38 (16)       820 (331)   5,755 (2,329)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ This total does not include 4,159 ac (1,683 ha) of lands within Vandenberg AFB that were identified as areas that meet the definition of critical
  habitat but are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act (see Exemptions section below).

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

Unit 1: Vandenberg

    Unit 1 is within the geographical area occupied by Vandenberg 
monkeyflower at the time of listing and consists of 223 ac (90 ha). 
Unit 1 is located adjacent to and between two extant occurrences (Oak 
Canyon and Pine Canyon, which are located on Vandenberg AFB) and is 
known to support suitable habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower. Although 
Vandenberg monkeyflower plants are not currently present above-ground 
within this unit, the area harbors the PCEs, and is contiguous with and 
between Vandenberg AFB lands that are known to be occupied; thus, the 
area within the unit (and the adjacent, contiguous land on Vandenberg 
AFB) is considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing. The adjacent land on Vandenberg AFB is 
essential to the conservation of the species; however, we are not 
designating Vandenberg AFB as critical habitat within this subunit 
because we have exempted Vandenberg AFB from critical habitat 
designation under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see Exemptions 
section below).
    Therefore, Unit 1 is composed entirely of Federal land (100 
percent) exclusively owned and managed by the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) and which contains the Lompoc Penitentiary. The unit consists of 
the westernmost portion of DOJ lands, from the Vandenberg AFB boundary 
line to roughly the break in slope at 100 ft (30 m) in elevation above 
the bottom slope of Santa Lucia Canyon. Unit 1 contains the appropriate 
vegetation structure of contiguous chaparral habitat with canopy gaps 
(PCE 1) and loose, sandy soils (PCE 2) that support Vandenberg 
monkeyflower. Unit 1 provides connectivity of habitat between 
occurrences, habitat for pollinators, and space for establishment of 
new plants from seeds that are dispersed from adjacent extant 
occurrences of Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species may 
require special management considerations or protection due to threats 
from invasion of nonnative plants. Ground disturbance within this unit 
could remove suitable habitat and create additional openings for 
nonnative plants to invade and degrade the quality of the habitat.

Unit 2: Santa Lucia

    Unit 2 is within the geographical area occupied by Vandenberg 
monkeyflower at the time of listing, is currently occupied by the 
species, and consists of 1,484 ac (601 ha). This unit includes State 
lands (96 percent) within the Reserve, relatively small portions of 
local agency lands (for example, school districts, water districts, 
community services districts) (less than 1 percent) and private lands 
(3 percent). Unit 2 contains the appropriate vegetation structure of 
contiguous chaparral habitat with canopy gaps (PCE 1) and loose, sandy 
soils (PCE 2) that support Vandenberg monkeyflower. The eastern 
boundary of Vandenberg AFB delineates the western boundary of this 
unit. Unit 2 includes most of the Vandenberg and Santa Lucia Management 
Units of the Reserve. Unit 2 extends from Purisima Hills at the 
northern extent through the width of Burton Mesa to the agricultural 
lands south of the Reserve, and to the eastern boundary of the 
Vandenberg and Santa Lucia Management Units where these units abut 
Vandenberg Village.
    Unit 2 supports one extant occurrence (Volans Avenue) and one 
potentially extirpated occurrence (Lower Santa Lucia Canyon) of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower. Between 2006 and 2011, the Volans Avenue 
occurrence has consisted of no more than 25 individuals; the 
potentially extirpated occurrence was last observed in 1985 (see the 
``Distribution of Vandenberg Monkeyflower--Historical Locations'' 
section of the proposed listing rule (78

[[Page 48149]]

FR 64840; October 29, 2013)). Unit 2 provides connectivity of habitat 
between occurrences within this unit, habitat for pollinators, space 
for establishment of seeds blown from upwind seed sources, and space 
for establishment of new plants from seeds that are dispersed from 
existing Vandenberg monkeyflower plants within the unit.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species may 
require special management considerations or protection due to threats 
from invasion of nonnative plants, and activities such as utility 
maintenance, and off-road vehicle and casual recreational uses. These 
activities could remove suitable habitat and Vandenberg monkeyflower 
individuals, and create additional openings for nonnative plants to 
invade and degrade the quality of the habitat.

Unit 3: Encina

    Unit 3 is within the geographical area occupied by Vandenberg 
monkeyflower at the time of listing and consists of 2,024 ac (819 ha). 
This unit contains State-owned lands (72 percent), including most of 
the Encina Management Unit of the Reserve, local agency lands (1.2 
percent), and privately owned lands such as areas adjacent to the 
Clubhouse Estates residential development (27 percent) (see Table 1 
above). Unit 3 contains the appropriate vegetation structure of 
contiguous chaparral habitat with canopy gaps (PCE 1) and loose, sandy 
soils (PCE 2) that support Vandenberg monkeyflower. Unit 3 extends from 
approximately the Purisima Hills to the north, through the Reserve and 
to the agricultural lands just south of the Reserve boundary, and is 
between Vandenberg Village and State Route 1 to the east and the 
residential communities of Mesa Oaks and Mission Hills to the west. 
Unit 3 supports two extant occurrences of Vandenberg monkeyflower 
(Clubhouse Estates and Davis Creek). Between 2006 and 2011, hundreds of 
individuals have been observed on more than one occasion at each of 
these occurrences (see ``Current Status of Vandenberg Monkeyflower'' 
section of the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; October 29, 2013). 
Unit 3 provides connectivity of habitat between occurrences within this 
unit, habitat for pollinators, space for establishment of seeds blown 
from upwind seed sources, and space for establishment of new plants 
from seeds that are dispersed from existing Vandenberg monkeyflower 
plants within the unit.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species may 
require special management considerations or protection due to threats 
from invasion of nonnative plants, development, utility maintenance, 
and off-road vehicle and casual recreational uses (including 
bicycling). These activities could remove suitable habitat and 
Vandenberg monkeyflower individuals, result in trampling of individual 
plants, and create additional openings for nonnatives to invade and 
degrade the quality of the habitat.

Unit 4: La Purisima

    Unit 4 is within the geographical area occupied by Vandenberg 
monkeyflower at the time of listing and consists of 2,024 ac (819 ha). 
Unit 4 contains mostly State-owned lands (89 percent) consisting of 
most of La Purisima Mission SHP and a small portion of the La Purisima 
Management Unit of the Reserve that is north of La Purisima Mission 
SHP. This unit also contains private land to the east of La Purisima 
Mission SHP (11 percent), and a small portion of local agency lands 
(less than 1 percent) (see Table 1 above). Unit 4 contains the 
appropriate vegetation structure of contiguous chaparral habitat with 
canopy gaps (PCE 1) and loose, sandy soils (PCE 2) that support 
Vandenberg monkeyflower. This unit extends approximately from the 
Purisima Hills in the north to the southern boundary of La Purisima 
Mission SHP, and between the residential communities of Mesa Oaks and 
Mission Hills to the west and to just east of, and outside, the State 
Park's eastern boundary. Unit 4 supports two extant occurrences of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower in La Purisima Mission SHP (La Purisima East 
and La Purisima West). Between 2006 and 2011, more than 2,000 
individuals of Vandenberg monkeyflower have been observed among the 
sites on both the east and west side of Purisima Canyon (see ``Current 
Status of Vandenberg Monkeyflower'' section of the proposed listing 
rule (78 FR 64840; Otober 29, 2013). This unit provides connectivity of 
habitat between occurrences within this unit, habitat for pollinators, 
space for establishment of seeds blown from upwind seed sources, and 
space for establishment of new plants from seeds that are dispersed 
from existing Vandenberg monkeyflower plants within the unit.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species may 
require special management considerations or protection due to threats 
from invasion of nonnative plants that could reduce the amount and 
quality of suitable habitat.

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, 443 (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 provisions of the Act, we determine 
destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with 
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical 
habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the 
species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded 
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:

[[Page 48150]]

    (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 alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower. As 
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-
history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for Vandenberg monkeyflower. These activities include, but 
are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would lead to the destruction or alteration of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat. Such activities could include, but are 
not limited to, development, road and utility repairs and maintenance, 
anthropogenic fires, and some casual recreational uses. These 
activities could lead to loss of habitat; removal of the seed bank; 
introduction and proliferation of invasive, nonnative plants; reduction 
of pollinators; and habitat fragmentation.
    (2) Actions that create ground disturbance and would lead to 
significant invasive, nonnative plant competition. Such activities 
could include, but are not limited to, any activity that results in 
ground disturbance and creates additional open areas for invasive, 
nonnative plants to invade Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat. Invasive, 
nonnative plants quickly establish in disturbed areas and outcompete 
native vegetation, including Vandenberg monkeyflower in the sandy 
openings (see Factor A--Invasive, Nonnative Species in the proposed 
listing rule (78 FR 64840; October 29, 2013)).

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 INRMP prepared under section 101 of the 
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that 
such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat 
is proposed for designation.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
critical habitat designation for Vandenberg monkeyflower to determine 
if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under 
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of 
Defense lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the area 
that meets the definition of critical habitat for Vandenberg 
monkeyflower.
Approved INRMPs
    Vandenberg AFB has a Service-approved INRMP. The U.S. Air Force (on 
Vandenberg AFB) committed to working closely with us and California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to continually refine the 
existing INRMP as part of the Sikes Act's INRMP review process. Based 
on our review of the INRMP for this military installation, and in 
accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we

[[Page 48151]]

have determined that certain lands within this installation meet the 
definition of critical habitat, and that conservation efforts 
identified in this INRMP, as modified by the 2012 Addendum, will 
provide a benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower (see the following 
sections that detail this determination for the installation). 
Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from critical 
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. In summary, 
we are not including as critical habitat in this final rule 
approximately 4,159 ac (1,683 ha) on Vandenberg AFB that meet the 
definition of critical habitat but are exempt from designation under 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
Vandenberg Air Force Base
    Vandenberg AFB is headquarters for the 30th Space Wing, the Air 
Force's Space Command unit that operates Vandenberg AFB and the Western 
Test Range and Pacific Missile Range. Vandenberg AFB operates as an 
aerospace center supporting west coast launch activities for the Air 
Force, Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, and commercial contractors. The three primary 
operational missions of Vandenberg AFB are to launch, place, and track 
satellites in near-polar orbit; to test and evaluate the 
Intercontinental ballistic missile systems; and to support aircraft 
operations in the western range. Vandenberg AFB lies on the south-
central California coast, approximately 275 mi (442 km) south of San 
Francisco, 140 mi (225 km) northwest of Los Angeles, and 55 mi (88 km) 
northwest of Santa Barbara. The 99,100-ac (40,104-ha) base extends 
along approximately 42 mi (67 km) of Santa Barbara County coast, and 
varies in width from 5 to 15 mi (8 to 24 km).
    The Vandenberg AFB INRMP was prepared to provide strategic 
direction to ecosystem and natural resources management on the Base. 
The long-term goal of the INRMP is to integrate all management 
activities in a manner that sustains, promotes, and restores the health 
and integrity of ecosystems using an adaptive management approach. The 
INRMP was designed to: (1) Summarize existing management plans and 
natural resources literature pertaining to Vandenberg AFB, (2) identify 
and analyze management goals in existing plans, (3) integrate the 
management goals and objectives of individual plans, (4) support Base 
compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, (5) support the 
integration of natural resource stewardship with the Air Force mission, 
and (6) provide direction for monitoring strategies.
    Vandenberg AFB completed an INRMP in May 2011 (Air Force 2011c). 
The INRMP includes chapters that identify invasive, nonnative plants on 
the Base as well as step-down goals for the management of threatened 
and endangered species on the Base. However, since Vandenberg 
monkeyflower was not a listed species at that time, specific goals for 
this plant were not included. In 2012, the Air Force approved an 
addendum to the May 2011 INRMP that addresses specific goals for 
Vandenberg monkeyflower (Air Force 2012). Management considerations 
that provide a conservation benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower in the 
addendum are:
    (1) Avoiding Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat to the maximum 
extent practicable by relocating and redesigning proposed projects, and 
using biological monitors during project activities.
    (2) Conducting nonnative species control efforts that target veldt 
grass across Vandenberg AFB. The Air Force has programmed more than 
$500,000 to treat veldt grass, with funding that started in 2009 and 
would continue through 2019.
    (3) Training Base personnel in the identification of sensitive 
species and their habitats, including Vandenberg monkeyflower, prior to 
implementing nonnative species control actions.
    (4) Implementing a fire response program, such as a Burned Area 
Emergency Response project, which includes post-fire monitoring, 
habitat restoration, erosion control, and nonnative species management.
    (5) Developing a controlled burning program that would include 
portions of Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat.
    (6) Conducting habitat and threat assessments to help decide the 
best approach for restoration actions.
    (7) Periodic surveys of Vandenberg monkeyflower populations on the 
Base.
    Vandenberg AFB supports four extant occurrences of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower located in Oak, Pine, Lakes, and Santa Lucia Canyons. 
Between 2006 and 2011, these four locations contained multiple 
occurrences; in 2010 specifically, more than 5,000 individuals were 
observed amongst all occurrences (see ``Occurrences Located on 
Vandenberg AFB'' section of the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840; 
October 29, 2013)). Vandenberg AFB provides approximately half of the 
available suitable habitat (Burton Mesa chaparral) for Vandenberg 
monkeyflower and has four out of nine extant occurrences.
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to the Vandenberg AFB INRMP and addendum, and the 
conservation efforts identified in the INRMP addendum will provide a 
benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower. Therefore, lands within this 
installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. We are not including approximately 4,159 ac 
(1,683 ha) of habitat in this final critical habitat designation 
because of this exemption.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best scientific data available 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 she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she 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.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impact 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects 
memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis, which, together with our 
narrative and interpretation of effects, constitute our DEA of the 
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (IEc 2014, 
entire). The analysis, dated March 19, 2014, was made available for 
public review from May 6, 2014, through June 5, 2014 (IEc 2014, entire) 
(79 FR 25797). The DEA addressed potential economic impacts of critical 
habitat designation for Vandenberg monkeyflower. Following the close of 
the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted 
during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the 
probable incremental economic

[[Page 48152]]

impacts of this critical habitat designation. Information relevant to 
the probable incremental economic impacts of critical habitat 
designation for the Vandenberg monkeyflower is summarized below and 
available in the screening analysis for the Vandenberg monkeyflower 
(IEc 2014), available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Critical habitat designation for Vandenberg monkeyflower is 
unlikely to generate combined direct and indirect costs exceeding $100 
million in a single year. Data limitations prevent the quantification 
of critical habitat benefits (IEc 2014, pp. 3, 22, 24).
    All critical habitat units are considered occupied. However, 
Vandenberg monkeyflower is an annual plant that may only be expressed 
above ground once a year or even less frequently (Service 2014, p. 15). 
Even though all units contain Vandenberg monkeyflower seed banks below 
ground, some project proponents may not be aware of the presence of the 
species absent a critical habitat designation. The characteristics of 
the plant make it difficult to determine whether future consultations 
will result from the presence of the listed species or designated 
critical habitat.
    Throughout our analysis (IEc, 2014, entire), we have considered two 
scenarios:
    (1) Low-end scenario. Project proponents identify the monkeyflower 
at their site, and most costs and benefits are attributable to listing 
the species.
    (2) High-end scenario. Costs and benefits are attributed to the 
designation of critical habitat.
    Projects with a Federal nexus within Vandenberg monkeyflower 
critical habitat are likely to be rare. We project fewer than three 
projects annually, associated with the Lompoc Penitentiary, the 
existing oil pipeline and utilities running through the Reserve, and 
road projects using Federal funding (IEc 2014, pp. 3, 12). In the high-
end scenario, costs in a single year are likely to be on the order of 
magnitude of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars (IEc 2014, pp. 3, 
12). In the low-end scenario, assuming above-ground expression of the 
monkeyflower, total costs in a single year will likely be less than 
$100,000.
    The potential exists for critical habitat to trigger additional 
requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 
the low-end scenario, impacts at all sites except the Burton Ranch 
Specific Plan area would be attributed to listing Vandenberg 
monkeyflower. In the high-end scenario, properties that could 
experience relatively larger impacts include the Burton Ranch Specific 
Plan area (Unit 3), potentially developable parcels along the northern 
border of Vandenberg Village (Units 2 and 3), the Freeport-McMoRan 
Inc., parcels overlapping the State-designated Lompoc Oil Field (Units 
2 and 3), and preferred sites for new drinking water wells in the 
Reserve (Unit 3). Given the value of possible impacts in these areas, 
we conclude that designating critical habitat for Vandenberg 
monkeyflower will not generate combined direct and indirect costs that 
exceed $100 million in a single year (i.e., the threshold according to 
Executive Order 12866 for determining if the costs and benefits of 
regulatory actions may have a significant economic impact in any one 
year).
    The changes to Units 1 and 3 described in this final rule do not 
modify the results of the screening analysis. Additional information 
and discussion regarding our economic analysis is available in our 
screening analysis and IEM (IEc 2014, entire; Service 2014, entire) 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0049.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs 
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the 
Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from 
this designation of critical habitat for the Vandenberg monkeyflower 
based on economic impacts.
    A copy of the screening analysis with supporting documents may be 
obtained by contacting the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland 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 final rule, we have 
determined that no lands within the designation of critical habitat for 
Vandenberg monkeyflower are owned or managed by the Department of 
Defense or Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we 
anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security. 
Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude 
any areas from this final designation based on impacts on national 
security or homeland security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider any other 
relevant impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat. 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.
    There are currently two management plans in existence for State 
lands at the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP. We considered for 
exclusion State lands at the Reserve (3,132 ac (1,268 ha) at the 
Reserve) and at La Purisima Mission SHP (1,542 ac (624 ha) at La 
Purisima Mission SHP), which together account for approximately 81 
percent of the critical habitat designation. For Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, we considered the following criteria for our exclusion 
analysis: (1) If the plan was complete and provided a conservation 
benefit for the species and its habitat; (2) if there was a reasonable 
expectation that the conservation management strategies and actions 
would be implemented into the future, based on past practices, written 
guidance, or regulations; and (3) if the plan provided conservation 
strategies and measures consistent with currently accepted principles 
of conservation biology.
    We did not exclude these areas from this final designation because: 
(1) These lands contain the physical and biological features essential 
to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower; (2) the State has 
developed general management plans for the Reserve and La Purisima 
Mission SHP that support a conservation strategy consistent with 
currently accepted principles of conservation biology and that may 
provide a benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat; however, 
these plans are general in nature and do not contain specific 
management goals for Vandenberg monkeyflower; and (3) we are concerned 
whether adequate resources (i.e., staffing and funding) will be 
available to implement these plans to protect Vandenberg monkeyflower 
into the future. The State is supportive of our critical habitat 
designation on the Reserve; the State did not provide any comments 
regarding La Purisima Mission SHP. However, we verbally

[[Page 48153]]

discussed designation of critical habitat with State Parks staff and 
received no substantive comments from them. Therefore, because the 
State lands at the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP meet the 
definition of critical habitat, the management plans do not include 
management goals specific to Vandenberg monkeyflower, we have concerns 
regarding implementation of these management plans into the future, and 
the State is generally supportive of critical habitat designated on 
these lands, the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP are included in 
the final critical habitat designation.
    In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are 
currently no permitted HCPs or other management plans for Vandenberg 
monkeyflower beyond those two identified above, and the final 
designation does not include any tribal lands or tribal trust 
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or 
HCPs from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary 
is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this final 
designation based on other relevant impacts.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower during two 
comment periods. The first comment period associated with the 
publication of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat (78 FR 
64446) opened on October 29, 2013, and closed on December 30, 2013. We 
also requested comments on the proposed critical habitat designation 
and associated DEA during a comment period that opened May 6, 2014, and 
closed on June 5, 2014 (79 FR 25797). We did not receive any requests 
for a public hearing. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and 
local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties 
and invited them to comment on the proposed rule and DEA during these 
comment periods. We received State comments from the CDFW regarding the 
Reserve, but received none from State Parks regarding La Purisima 
Mission SHP.
    During the first comment period, we received seven comment letters 
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During 
the second comment period, we received six comment letters addressing 
the proposed critical habitat designation or the DEA. All substantive 
information provided during comment periods has either been 
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed 
below. Comments we received are addressed in the following summary and 
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat, the geographic region in which 
the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. Our request 
included peer review of both the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840) 
and proposed critical habitat rule (78 FR 64446). Although we received 
responses from all three peer reviewers on the proposed listing rule, 
only two commented specifically on the proposed critical habitat rule. 
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for 
Vandenberg monkeyflower. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the 
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments Received

    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that designation of lands 
within the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP as critical habitat is 
necessary for preserving the few extant populations of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, and preserving sites for potential new populations or 
currently unknown populations. The peer reviewer believes that this 
species likely persists as a metapopulation that consists of a mix of 
currently occupied and unoccupied patches, and the currently unoccupied 
patches are critical for the long-term persistence of the species. 
Additionally, the peer reviewer stated that fires, floods, 
anthropogenic disturbances, and vegetation succession will inevitably 
degrade the quality of some currently occupied patches, yet improve the 
quality of other patches or create new sandy openings suitable for 
colonization. Finally, the peer reviewer stated that it is critical to 
maintain the network of occupied, unoccupied, and potential new patches 
within the region of the metapopulation, particularly for a species 
such as the Vandenberg monkeyflower that has limited dispersal 
capabilities and a persistent seed bank.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that occupied, 
unoccupied and potential new patches of habitat for VM are important 
for the long-term persistence and recovery of the species. We have 
designated areas that are considered occupied; although Vandenberg 
monkeyflower plants are not presently above ground in some areas of 
unit 1, we agree with the peer reviewer that these areas are critical 
for the long-term persistence of the species. With respect to the state 
lands, as described above under ``Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 
Impacts,'' we did not exclude the State lands within the Reserve and La 
Purisima Mission SHP from this final critical habitat designation 
because: (1) They contain the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower; (2) the 
State's general management plans for the Reserve and La Purisima 
Mission SHP support a conservation strategy consistent with currently 
accepted principles of conservation biology and that may provide a 
benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat, but these plans are 
general in nature and do not contain specific management goals 
important for Vandenberg monkeyflower; and (3) we are concerned whether 
adequate resources (i.e., staffing and funding) will be available to 
implement these plans to protect Vandenberg monkeyflower into the 
future. We will continue to work with our State partners to address the 
conservation needs of the species, and we will consider the network of 
occupied and unoccupied areas when we develop recovery criteria for a 
recovery plan in the future.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer said that our description of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower as occurring ``only at low elevations and close 
to the coast in a distinct region in western Santa Barbara County known 
as Burton Mesa'' was too definitive. The peer reviewer pointed out 
that, although we only know it to occur on Burton Mesa currently, with 
additional information, we could find that it occurs at higher 
elevations or at other locations (such as in Santa Ynez Valley where 
the species was collected in 1931).
    Our Response: We agree that it is possible that, with additional 
surveys over time, more populations of the species may be located at 
higher elevations or outside the currently known range. Our Policy on 
Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (see discussion 
under Critical Habitat above) directs us to base our decisions on the 
best scientific data available. It is possible that additional 
populations of Vandenberg monkeyflower will be found in the future, and 
that they may occur on lands not designated as critical habitat. We 
note, however, that critical habitat

[[Page 48154]]

designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the 
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the 
recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat 
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is 
unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas 
that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and 
outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject 
to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the 
Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 
7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or 
threatened species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. 
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, HCPs, or other species conservation planning efforts if 
new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls 
for a different outcome.

State Comments Received

    (3) Comment: The CDFW is generally supportive of critical habitat 
on the Reserve because it would assist the Department in obtaining 
funding and grants to enhance management and recovery of the species 
and its habitat.
    Our Response: We appreciate the State's comment.
    (4) Comment: The CDFW suggested that designation of critical 
habitat would provide an additional level of attention and protection 
for areas known to support the species and its pollinators.
    Our Response: We appreciate CDFW's concern for protection of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower, its habitat, and its pollinators. The benefits 
of designating critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower include, 
but are not limited to, public awareness of the presence of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, the importance of habitat protection, and in cases where 
a Federal nexus exists, the potential for greater habitat protection 
for Vandenberg monkeyflower due to the legally binding duty of Federal 
agencies to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Therefore, the rules designating critical habitat and listing 
the species as an endangered species serve to educate the public on the 
sensitivity of Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat on Burton Mesa.
    (5) Comment: The CDFW is concerned that lands on the Reserve are at 
risk from requests by outside parties to obtain additional leases that 
could result in direct effects to Vandenberg monkeyflower (such as 
removal of occupied habitat), or indirect effects (such as from 
changing adjoining land uses and fragmenting remaining areas). CDFW 
stated that they specifically support critical habitat designation on 
the 106 ac (43 ha) that the Vandenberg Village Community Services 
District (VVCSD) requested for exclusion from the critical habitat 
designation because CDFW believes this area supports Vandenberg 
monkeyflower and other rare and endangered plant and animal species, 
provides essential connectivity for wildlife, and contains the only 
perennial stream (Davis Creek) in the Reserve.
    Our Response: We agree with CDFW that leases could affect 
Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat. Because the 106 ac (43 ha) 
that the VVCSD requested to exclude from the final critical habitat 
designation contains the physical or biological features essential to 
conservation of the species, including a known population of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, and do not otherwise meet our standards for excluding 
areas from the designation, we are not excluding this area within the 
Reserve from the final critical habitat designation.
    (6) Comment: The CDFW suggested that the designation of critical 
habitat on the Reserve and nearby private lands would strengthen their 
ability to protect biological resources, such as Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, and help ensure avoidance measures and mitigation efforts 
are undertaken for this species.
    Our Response: Under the Act, the only regulatory effect of a 
critical habitat designation is that Federal agencies must ensure that 
their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under 
section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, 
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. The designation of critical 
habitat on private lands does not impose a legally binding duty on non-
Federal Government entities or private parties, although, again, there 
may be indirect impacts if there is a federal nexus. Local land use 
planning and permitting agencies, such as the County of Santa Barbara 
and the City of Lompoc, serve as lead agencies for purposes of 
compliance with CEQA. The designation of critical habitat on private 
lands will serve to notify these agencies concerning the importance of 
conserving this habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower during project 
planning and review.
    (7) Comment: The CDFW noted that Reserve lands include numerous 
easements by various entities; unmarked rights-of-way; and old and 
sometimes abandoned infrastructure. In addition, the Central Coastal 
Water Authority's (CCWA) State water-line traverses Vandenberg 
monkeyflower habitat just north of the Reserve. CDFW stated that 
maintenance and emergency repairs of such infrastructure should address 
conservation and protection of this habitat area.
    Our Response: We appreciate this information and look forward to 
working with the CDFW to develop best management practices that could 
be used during routine maintenance activities, emergency repairs, and 
other opportunities that may arise. These practices would likely be 
important to contribute to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower 
and its habitat.
    (8) Comment: The CDFW commented that designating critical habitat 
on the Clubhouse Estates project area would be beneficial for the 
conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comment. In the revised proposed 
rule to designate critical habitat (79 FR 25797), we added 24 ac (10 
ha) of private land inadvertently left out of the original proposal to 
Unit 3 of the proposed critical habitat designation (78 FR 64446). The 
24 ac (10 ha) is on a portion of the open space parcel at Clubhouse 
Estates. This portion of the open space parcel meets the definition of 
critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower and contains the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, and is contiguous with Reserve lands that also support 
Vandenberg monkeyflower. See Summary of Changes from October 29, 2013, 
Proposed Rule above.
    (9) Comment: The CDFW noted that there is potential for oil and gas 
exploration and development to occur on lands adjoining the Reserve, 
and that directional drilling, hydraulic fracking, or steam injection 
techniques could affect surface resources on the Reserve.
    Our Response: In our proposed rule to list Vandenberg monkeyflower, 
we

[[Page 48155]]

discussed that there were oil and gas fields adjacent to Burton Mesa 
(see Background--Land Ownership section in the proposed listing rule 
(78 FR 64840)). However, we did not identify these activities as 
threats to the species because we had no information regarding the 
potential for them to affect Vandenberg monkeyflower or its habitat. 
There has been an increase in oil well permit applications in Santa 
Barbara County over the past 5 years (IEc 2014); even so, we have no 
specific information regarding the extent that these activities may 
occur in the future, or the extent that they may affect surface 
resources on the Reserve. However, should these activities be proposed 
in the future, they may be subject to review by Santa Barbara County 
pursuant to CEQA depending on the impact to environmental resources and 
whether there is a possible impact to a sensitive species or its 
habitat. State oil and gas fields are regulated by the California 
Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 
Resources.
    (10) Comment: The CDFW states that there is potential for oil and 
gas exploration to occur on lands adjoining the Reserve, and that 
directional drilling beneath the Reserve for hydraulic fracking or 
steam injection could adversely affect surface resources. The CDFW 
explains that the designation of critical habitat would provide an 
additional layer of protection for the species, and would help ensure 
that avoidance measures and mitigation efforts are undertaken to 
protect the species. The CDFW is in favor of the proposed designation.
    Our Response: As discussed in the DEA, there has been an increase 
in oil and gas permit applications in Santa Barbara County over the 
past 5 years (IEc 2014, p. 19). It is possible that new directional 
drilling projects could be initiated in the area, but it is difficult 
to predict whether these may occur within the critical habitat area. 
Because new directional drilling technologies are rapidly being 
developed and becoming economically viable, it is unclear whether a new 
project may involve hydraulic fracking, steam injection, or a different 
drilling technique. Furthermore, hydraulic fracking and steam injection 
are relatively new techniques and there is limited knowledge and 
evidence of their potential to affect surface resources. Due to these 
uncertainties, data limitations prevent us from quantifying the 
likelihood or magnitude of such directional drilling involving 
hydraulic fracking in areas designated as critical habitat. Thus we are 
unable, at this time, to estimate the potential impact of hydraulic 
fracking on surface resources in the Reserve. Therefore, data 
limitations prevent us from estimating the potential for economic 
impacts associated with this activity.

Other Comments Received

    (11) Comment: One commenter suggested that we open a nursery at the 
Lompoc Penitentiary and transplant all Vandenberg monkeyflowers to this 
nursery. The commenter believes that letting the prisoners raise 
Vandenberg monkeyflower would save the species from being endangered 
and it would also create a profit for the prison because they could 
sell Vandenberg monkeyflower that is grown in the nursery.
    Our Response: We agree that cooperation among agencies is important 
to prevent further losses of currently occupied habitat, as well as for 
developing options for future management and conservation of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower. However, section 2(b) of the Act directs us ``to provide 
a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened 
species depend may be conserved.'' Because approximately 50 percent of 
the habitat on which Vandenberg monkeyflower occurs still remains, and 
this habitat contains the appropriate physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species, we expect this remaining 
habitat would support the recovery of the species with appropriate 
management and conservation actions. The critical habitat designation 
will provide an educational tool to our partners regarding the 
importance of managing the remaining habitat appropriately.
    Specific recovery objectives and criteria to delist Vandenberg 
monkeyflower in the future will be developed during the formal recovery 
planning process. This process will involve species experts, 
scientists, and interested members of the public, in accordance with 
the interagency policy on recovery plans under the Act, published on 
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272). We anticipate that recovery objectives and 
criteria for Vandenberg monkeyflower will focus on in situ (within its 
natural habitat) conservation efforts, and whether ex situ (outside of 
its natural habitat) conservation efforts such as propagating plants in 
a nursery are called for would be determined through the recovery 
planning process. We look forward to working with the Bureau of Prisons 
during the recovery planning process to determine how they can assist 
in the recovery of the species.
    (12) Comment: Three commenters submitted similar comments regarding 
their concern that designation of critical habitat would limit 
recreational activities for local residents in Burton Mesa chaparral. 
Specifically, these commenters are concerned that the critical habitat 
designation would reduce mountain bicycling opportunities for the local 
residents.
    Our Response: The only regulatory effect of a critical habitat 
designation is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do 
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7 of the 
Act. 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.
    For State lands included in the critical habitat designation (i.e., 
the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP), recreational activities, 
including mountain-biking, are regulated and managed by the CDFW (in 
the case of the Reserve) and California State Parks (in the case of La 
Purisima Mission SHP). Mountain-biking is prohibited at the Reserve, 
and is restricted to authorized roads and trails at La Purisima Mission 
SHP. These State agencies have already completed analyses of the 
potential impacts of various recreational activities on the natural 
resources they manage; these analyses are contained in their management 
plans (Gevirtz et al. 2007; California State Parks 1991) and other 
regulatory documents. The designation of critical habitat on these 
lands imposes no additional restrictions on these uses beyond what is 
imposed by these State agencies. For Federal lands included in the 
critical habitat designation, the Bureau of Prisons manages Lompoc 
Penitentiary, and riding bicycles by members of the public is 
prohibited. On private lands, the designation of critical habitat does 
not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or 
private parties.
    In summary, the designation of critical habitat requires Federal 
agencies not to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, but does 
not impose any additional regulations or prohibitions beyond those 
described above on the current management that the State agencies 
administer at the Reserve or La Purisima Mission SHP, or that private 
landowners impose on their lands.

[[Page 48156]]

    (13) Comment: One commenter stated that he has lived and enjoyed 
the chaparral near Vandenberg Village since he was child, and as an 
adult he enjoys it often by running, walking dogs, riding off-road 
bikes, and geo-caching. The commenter stated that these experiences 
provide a healthy respect for the environment, and the government 
should not pursue respect of the environment by outlawing the enjoyment 
of the surrounding environment through legislation. We interpret the 
commenter's statement that ``Ordinary, casual, non-invasive access to 
public lands should never be criminalized'' to reflect the commenter's 
belief that a critical habitat designation for a federally endangered 
plant would prevent further access to public lands that harbor 
chaparral habitat.
    Our Response: Recreational activities on the Reserve and at La 
Purisima Mission SHP are governed by state management plans. According 
to the Reserve's management plan, hiking on designated trails, wildlife 
watching, environmental education, walking with a pet on a leash less 
than 10 ft (3 m) in length, and research allowed by the CDFW are public 
recreational uses allowed at the Reserve (Gevirtz et al. 2007, p. 70). 
In addition, according to the La Purisima Mission SHP management plan, 
current recreational uses allowed by State Parks include tours (guided 
mission tours and self-guided tours); nature walks, hiking, jogging, 
dog-walking, and horseback riding on designated trails; and picnicking 
(California State Parks 1991, p. 148). However, riding of off-road 
bikes is not an allowed recreational activity at the Reserve, and is 
restricted to authorized roads and trails at La Purisima Mission SHP. 
As stated above (see our response to Comment 12 above), the designation 
of critical habitat would not preclude the recreational activities 
already allowed at the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP, nor create 
additional restrictions. Therefore, the public would be able to 
participate in the recreational activities as allowed under the 
management plans of the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP, 
respectively.
    (14) Comment: Two commenters suggested that primary action for us 
to conserve Vandenberg monkeyflower would be to educate the public on 
the sensitivity of the chaparral as opposed to ``closing it down'' and 
``locking the public away from it.''
    Our Response: Absent explanation from the commenters, we have 
assumed that ``closing it down'' and ``locking the public away from 
it'' refers to the commenters' concern that the designation would 
prevent public use of the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP. See our 
response to Comments 12 and 13 above regarding what duty the 
designation of critical habitat places on non-Federal landowners and 
non-Federal agencies and the relationship of designating critical 
habitat to the current management at the Reserve and La Purisima 
Mission SHP; designation of critical habitat would not affect the 
current management plans of these State lands.
    Regarding educating the public on the sensitivity of the chaparral 
habitat, in the case of Vandenberg monkeyflower, the benefits of 
critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, the importance of habitat protection, and in cases where 
a Federal nexus exists, the potential for greater habitat protection 
for the species due to the legally binding duty of Federal agencies to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (see 
``Exclusions--Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section in 
the proposed critical habitat rule) (78 FR 64446). Therefore, the final 
rules to designate critical habitat and list Vandenberg monkeyflower as 
an endangered species serve to educate the public on the sensitivity of 
this species and its habitat on Burton Mesa.
    (15) Comment: A mountain-biking association noted that the DEA 
(screening memo and associated IEM) do not discuss nor provide evidence 
of the effects of human recreation on the proposed critical habitat, 
specifically effects related to bicycling.
    Our Response: The purpose of the DEA is to discuss the economic 
impacts that critical habitat designation may have, above and beyond 
the listing of the species, to various sectors of the community. 
Recreational activities, including mountain-biking, are regulated by 
the CDFW (in the case of the Reserve) and California State Parks (in 
the case of La Purisima Mission SHP) on the lands they manage. 
Mountain-biking is prohibited on Reserve lands, and restricted to 
authorized roads and trails on La Purisima Mission SHP. These State 
agencies have already developed management plans that define the types 
of recreational activities on the natural resources they manage 
(Gevirtz et al. 2007; California State Parks 1991)The designation of 
critical habitat on these lands imposes no additional restrictions 
beyond what is imposed by these State agencies. Consequently, there is 
no economic impact to the mountain-biking community, and that is why 
mountain biking was not addressed in the DEA.
    (16) Comment: A mountain-biking association stated that studies 
have been done to suggest that mountain bicycles and hiking have 
similar impacts on wildlife. The commenter stated that, without 
specific studies on how mountain-bike use would impact Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, it would be premature to limit or halt the use of 
mountain bikes in Burton Mesa chaparral habitat.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule to list Vandenberg monkeyflower 
as an endangered species (78 FR 64840), we stated that the available 
information did not indicate the extent and degree to which mountain 
biking may be directly impacting Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat on the 
Reserve, which accounts for much of the Burton Mesa chaparral habitat 
within our critical habitat designation. However, we have recently been 
informed by CDFW that unauthorized mountain-bike use on the Reserve has 
been increasing, and that CDFW law enforcement staff have recently been 
meeting with local biking groups to discuss these issues.
    With respect to the biological impacts that mountain bikes may have 
to sensitive resources, we note that the commenter did not provide 
information regarding studies on biking and hiking impacts. 
Nevertheless, in our proposed rule to list Vandenberg monkeyflower as 
an endangered species (78 FR 64840), we discuss threats to this species 
and its habitat from recreational activities (see Factor A--The Present 
or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat 
or Range--Recreational and Other Human Activities); studies have shown 
that wheeled recreational activities likely contribute to the spread of 
invasive, nonnative plant species at other locations (Gelbard and 
Belnap 2003; Gevirtz et al. 2005, p. 225). Therefore, while there may 
not be studies regarding the effects of mountain biking on Vandenberg 
monkeyflower specifically, we identified invasive, nonnative plants as 
the greatest threat to this species and its habitat, and it is likely 
that this type of impact occurs within the Reserve along the travel 
routes, some of which occur within Burton Mesa chaparral (Vandenberg 
monkeyflower) habitat.
    Restrictions on mountain bike use are a result of State direction 
as opposed to a restriction associated though a critical habitat 
designation. Specifically, for State lands included in the critical 
habitat designation, mountain-biking is prohibited at the Reserve, and 
is restricted to authorized roads and trails

[[Page 48157]]

at La Purisima Mission SHP. The State agencies have completed analyses 
of potential mountain biking impacts on natural resources that they 
manage. See also our response to Comment 12.
    (17) Comment: One commenter supported the designation of critical 
habitat because it would greatly increase Vandenberg monkeyflower's 
chance of survival.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's support to designate 
critical habitat for this species. The potential benefits of 
designating critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower include, but 
are not limited, to: (1) Focusing conservation activities on the most 
essential features and areas; (2) providing educational benefits to 
State or county governments, private entities, and the public; and (3) 
reducing the potential for the public to cause inadvertent harm to the 
species.
    (18) Comment: One commenter encouraged us to consider unoccupied 
habitat for the critical habitat designation, specifically where the 
species could be recovered in light of the extent of habitat loss of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    Our Response: Under the first prong of the Act's definition of 
critical habitat, areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed are included in a critical habitat 
designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which 
are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may 
require special management considerations or protection. Under the 
second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can 
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic 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 geographic area 
occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
    In the case of Vandenberg monkeyflower, we are designating critical 
habitat under the first prong of the Act because we determined that the 
area that is within the geographic range of the species contains the 
physical or biological features that are essential to Vandenberg 
monkeyflower and would be adequate for the conservation of the species. 
In addition, habitat that is essential to Vandenberg monkeyflower 
occurs on Vandenberg AFB; however, we did not designate critical 
habitat on Vandenberg AFB because the Air Force has an approved INRMP, 
which provides a conservation benefit to Vandenberg monkeyflower and 
its habitat, and thus the Air Force is exempt from critical habitat per 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. Finally, we note that the commenter 
did not include reference to any particular area in which they were 
concerned.
    (19) Comment: One commenter suggested that we should not exclude 
lands from the final critical habitat designation that are managed by 
the State at the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP because their 
existing management plans are general plans and are not implemented 
specifically to protect Vandenberg monkeyflower. The commenter stated 
that the benefits of including State lands at the Reserve and the La 
Purisima Mission SHP as designated critical habitat would enhance 
protection for Vandenberg monkeyflower, even if the existing general 
plans overlap or duplicate future protections on these lands.
    Our Response: Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. 
We consider a number of factors when excluding areas from critical 
habitat designations, including (but not limited to) whether landowners 
have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area; whether 
there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by 
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat; tribal issues; and 
other relevant impacts. For Vandenberg monkeyflower, we considered if 
the current land management plans at the Reserve and La Purisima 
Mission SHP provide adequate management or protection (see Exclusions 
Based on Other Relevant Impacts for additional discussion).
    For both the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP, the commenter is 
correct in that the general management plans are not implemented 
specifically to protect Vandenberg monkeyflower. Both the general 
management plans address the above criteria to some degree for 
exclusion of lands from critical habitat designation; for instance, 
they support a conservation strategy consistent with currently accepted 
principles of conservation biology that would provide a benefit to 
Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat. However, based on conversations with 
staff at the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP, we have concerns 
whether the resources will be available to adequately implement these 
plans to protect Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat into the 
future. Therefore, because these lands meet the definition of critical 
habitat and contain the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species, and we have concerns regarding the 
implementation of the management plans in the future, we have not 
excluded the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP in the final critical 
habitat designation (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts 
section).
    (20) Comment: One commenter suggested that among the economic 
benefits and impacts of designating critical habitat, the Service 
should consider such benefits as the ecological value of protecting the 
maritime chaparral of Burton Mesa, the added benefit of the public's 
enjoyment of nature, and the natural heritage of California and Santa 
Barbara County.
    Our Response: We acknowledge the comment. Critical habitat 
designation can also result in ancillary conservation benefits to 
Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat by educating the public and 
local agencies, such as the County of Santa Barbara, about the 
importance of conserving Burton Mesa chaparral habitat. Section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act directs us to take into consideration the economic impact, 
the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of 
specifying any particular areas as critical habitat. We recognize that 
there may be economic benefits from the additional beneficial services 
that derive from conservation efforts but are not the purpose of the 
Act (i.e., ancillary benefits). However, due to existing data 
limitations, we were unable to monetize these beneficial services 
during the development of the economic analysis.

Comment Regarding Critical Habitat Unit Boundaries

    (21) Comment: One commenter was supportive of our proposal to 
designate critical habitat and our inclusion into critical habitat of 
areas with suitable habitat on Burton Mesa where the species may grow 
due to the shifting nature of Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat. 
However, the commenter questioned the boundaries of critical habitat 
because we did not include certain areas in Unit 2 (Santa Lucia) that 
were impacted by nonnative species and vehicle trackways (e.g., the 
racetrack), which makes the unit unnecessarily fragmented. The 
commenter stated that we should include additional areas between Units 
3 (Encina) and 4 (La Purisima), and northeast of Unit 3 because 
suitable habitat is present.

[[Page 48158]]

    Our Response: We conducted an evaluation of the specific areas 
suggested by the commenter as potentially containing habitat to 
determine if they may have the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species and may require special 
management considerations or protection. We used aerial photographs 
(Google Earth 2012) and soil series mapped by the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service 1972). We found that 
neither the suggested areas within Unit 2 nor the area northeast of 
Unit 3 consist of the appropriate soil types as described in the 
Physical or Biological Features--Loose Sandy Soils section of the 
proposed critical habitat rule (78 FR 64446). Additionally, the ridge 
between Units 3 and 4 was at a higher elevation than we used for our 
mapping criteria, which was based in part on the elevations of known 
populations of Vandenberg monkeyflower. Consequently, these areas do 
not meet the definition of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower 
and thus were not included in this final rule.

Adequacy of PCEs

    (22) Comment: One commenter questioned the Primary Constituent 
Elements (PCEs) we identified, stating that the PCEs (maritime 
chaparral communities of Burton Mesa and loose sandy soils) described 
in the proposed critical habitat designation are overly general and 
encompass large areas that are not currently occupied by the species, 
and that the link between the PCEs and these areas is not clear or 
supported by evidence.
    Our Response: Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we 
are required to identify the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower in areas occupied at the 
time of listing, focusing on the features' PCEs. We consider PCEs to be 
the elements of physical or biological features that provide for a 
species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation 
of the species. In determining which areas within the geographic area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical 
habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require 
special management considerations or protection. Therefore, we 
considered the areas occupied by the species, and the elements of the 
physical or biological features that provide for this species' life-
history processes, including: (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 Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    Combined with the criteria used to identify critical habitat, we 
evaluated the best available information and used the best scientific 
data available. Based on our current knowledge of the physical or 
biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the 
species' life-history processes, we determined that the structure of 
the maritime chaparral habitat and loose sandy soils are appropriate 
PCEs for Vandenberg monkeyflower (see Primary Constituent Elements 
(PCEs) for Vandenberg Monkeyflower). We note that, although the 
commenter stated the PCEs in and of themselves may appear overly broad, 
the commenter provided no new information to help better define the 
PCEs or improve the criteria we used to delineate boundaries.
    (23) Comment: One commenter stated we should have excluded in the 
text description of the PCEs those areas that consist of consolidated 
soils because they are not suitable for Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    Our Response: Consolidated soils may appear to be less suitable 
than loose sandy soils for Vandenberg monkeyflower and its associated 
life-history processes. We sought to find a means of separating out 
such consolidated soils from loose sandy soils; however, the best 
available data (as mapped by NRCS) includes a combined mix of 
consolidated and loose sandy soils. It is also quite likely that both 
the consolidated and loose sandy soils provide suitable substrate and 
vegetation for certain ground-nesting pollinators. For these reasons, 
we did not exclude consolidated soils when we created/developed PCEs 
for Vandenberg monkeyflower. We note further that the commenter did not 
provide any additional information that would assist us in excluding 
these soils.
    (24) Comment: One commenter stated we should have excluded areas 
that are currently dominated by nonnative species, such as veldt grass 
or eucalyptus and pine groves, because these areas do not contain the 
``essential features.''
    Our Response: Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act 
as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features: (a) Essential to the 
conservation of the species, and (b) Which may require special 
management considerations or protection; and (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. Areas that currently support nonnative species, such as 
veldt grass or eucalyptus and pine groves, may not visually appear to 
be suitable habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower. However, physical or 
biological features relied upon by the species are present.
    For example, appropriate soil types are present throughout the 
areas with invasive, nonnatives present, and it is probable that 
pollinators and seed dispersers traverse areas consisting of nonnative 
plants adjacent to and in between Vandenberg monkeyflower populations 
(see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat and Physical or 
Biological Features--Contiguous Chaparral Habitat sections for 
additional pollinator discussion). In addition, with special management 
of the habitat that currently consists of nonnative plants, these areas 
could support new or expanded populations of Vandenberg monkeyflower 
and its habitat, as well as associated life-history processes, in the 
future. Therefore, we have included in the critical habitat designation 
those areas containing the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species that are occupied at the time of 
listing and that may require special management considerations or 
protection, including some areas that currently support nonnative 
species.
    (25) Comment: One commenter stated that no explanation was given as 
to why we needed to include all extant populations outside of 
Vandenberg AFB in the proposed critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: As discussed above, the purpose of designating 
critical habitat is to identify the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of a threatened or endangered species in 
areas occupied at the time of listing that may require special 
management considerations or protection. In the case of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, the Burton Mesa chaparral community, which harbors the 
full range of the species, has already sustained a loss of 
approximately 53 percent over the last 80 years (Service 2012a; Hickson 
1987). Moreover, the

[[Page 48159]]

number of Vandenberg monkeyflower populations and the number of 
individuals are small when compared to other annual species (see, for 
example, Keith 1998, pp. 1076-1090; Natureserve 2012, pp. 21-22). 
Because the size and number of populations are small, and the habitat 
has already been subjected to substantial losses over the last 80 
years, additional losses of habitat that support the life-history 
processes reduce the likelihood of the long-term persistence of the 
species. These factors contributed to our determination that the 
remaining suitable habitat (including habitat supporting all 
populations outside of Vandenberg AFB) for Vandenberg monkeyflower is 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    (26) Comment: One commenter stated that seed dispersal distances, 
which the Service uses as part of the methodology to delineate proposed 
critical habitat boundaries for Vandenberg monkeyflower, are based on 
inappropriate examples, such as Greene and Johnson (1995). The 
commenter believes this reference is not appropriate because the study 
focused on long-distance dispersal of tree seeds that are specifically 
adapted to wind dispersal, rather than small-statured annual plant 
species like Vandenberg monkeyflower. Rather, the commenter suggested 
using examples such as Soons et al. (2004), which show dispersal 
distances of less than 33 ft (10 m) that may be more appropriate to 
compare with Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    Our Response: We agree that the discussion concerning seed 
dispersal distances could be improved, specifically with regard to how 
dispersal distances were used as one criterion to help delineate 
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat. Therefore, we have 
provided revised text to clarify the seed dispersal discussion in the 
Contiguous Chaparral Habitat section of this rule. We acknowledge that 
one of the references cited (i.e., Greene and Johnson 1995) focused on 
long-distance dispersal of tree seeds rather than annual plant species. 
However, we note that we did not compare the dispersal distances of the 
tree seeds with those of Vandenberg monkeyflower; we used this 
reference specifically to make the point that seeds may be caught in 
wind updrafts that could carry them longer distances than horizontal 
winds.
    We also reviewed Soons et al. (2004), which the commenter suggested 
could be more analogous to Vandenberg monkeyflower for examining 
potential seed dispersal distances. We found that the focus of the 
Soons et al. (2004) study was to: (1) Determine which intrinsic and 
extrinsic factors were used in various dispersability models, and (2) 
compare how well the models simulated field studies of seed dispersal 
distances for four species. The study, therefore, did not attempt to 
determine long-distance seed dispersal distances for the four species. 
Further, we conducted an additional review of the best available 
literature regarding seed dispersal distances and recognize that 
determining long-distance seed dispersal distances for any species is 
challenging (see Contiguous Chaparral Habitat and Summary of Changes 
From October 29, 2013, Proposed Rule sections above). More importantly, 
we realize we did not explain how short-distance seed dispersal and 
long-distance seed dispersal differ with respect to the long-term 
persistence of the species, even if the latter cannot be precisely 
determined. Therefore, we have provided a revised discussion of seed 
dispersal for Vandenberg monkeyflower in the discussion of Contiguous 
Chaparral Habitat (see Summary of Changes From October 29, 2013, 
Proposed Rule and Physical or Biological Features sections).

Comments Regarding Pollinators and Pollinator Foraging Distances

    (27) Comment: One commenter stated that pollinators would only use 
maximum foraging distances under highly stressed conditions, as 
compared to shorter distances that are more commonly used.
    Our Response: Regarding our use of maximum pollinator foraging 
distances rather than average foraging distances to help delineate 
critical habitat boundaries, we note the following: A recent discussion 
of pollinator foraging distances by Zurbechen et al. (2010, entire) 
concludes that earlier studies on foraging distances had generally 
underestimated the maximum distances flown, such as those calculated 
based on body size (e.g., Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002, entire). For 
instance, the small solitary bee Hylaeus punctulatissimus (no common 
name) had a maximum foraging distance of 3,609 ft (1,100 m), and the 
medium-sized solitary bee Chelostoma rapunculi (no common name) had a 
maximum foraging distance of 4,183 ft (1,275 m) (Zurbechen et al. 2010, 
p. 674). They also found that most individual bees within each species 
typically flew shorter distances, with 75 percent of H. 
punctulatissimus and Hoplitis adunca (another medium-sized solitary 
bee) individuals flying no farther than 1,312 ft (400 m) and 2,297 ft 
(700 m), respectively (Zurbechen et al. 2010, pp. 671-675). We agree 
with the commenter that pollinator flight distances would be dependent 
on the availability of floral resources, among other things. 
Pollinators for Vandenberg monkeyflower likely fly longer distances to 
gather required resources in less favorable years given that it is a 
small annual species that shows high variability in its expression 
depending on climatic conditions, and that other flowering plants 
within the maritime chaparral habitat are also affected by the annual 
variation in climatic conditions. Thus, when determining which areas 
should be critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower, we considered 
habitat potentially used by pollinators in both favorable and 
unfavorable years to assist us in developing the pollinator foraging 
distance criteria for delineating critical habitat boundaries.
    (28) Comment: One commenter stated that the discussion we included 
in the proposed rule regarding bumblebee foraging distances (see 
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat) was irrelevant to 
Vandenberg monkeyflower, since they are not considered potential 
pollinators for this plant.
    Our Response: We have provided a revised discussion of pollinator 
foraging distances in this final rule (see Summary of Changes from 
October 29, 2013, Proposed Rule and Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat sections). We agree that bumblebee foraging distances are not 
appropriate to reference with respect to Vandenberg monkeyflower 
because they are not likely pollinators. Therefore, we discuss foraging 
distances of small- to medium-sized bees that are more likely 
pollinators than bumblebees for Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    (29) Comment: One commenter stated that we inappropriately focused 
on a study by Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke (2000) that discusses 
foraging distances for honeybees, rather than considering the foraging 
distances of solitary bee species that are more likely between 164 and 
1,640 ft (50 and 500 m). The commenter believes the actual foraging 
distance is more appropriate to consider than maximum foraging 
distance.
    Our Response: Relative to our use of a study by Steffan-Dewenter 
and Tscharntke (2000, entire), we have rewritten the discussion of 
pollination ecology for Vandenberg monkeyflower and the discussion of 
pollinator flight distances in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat section of this final rule. In addition, see our response to 
Comment 27 relative to using maximum foraging distances of pollinators, 
including the need to

[[Page 48160]]

consider areas used by pollinators in both favorable and unfavorable 
years.
    (30) Comment: One commenter stated that, although bees require 
nearly continuous habitat for foraging, habitat need not be in every 
direction out from the apiary (i.e., hive or nest). As such, the 
commenter believes the existing areas of reserves and conservation 
areas on State and Federal land are adequate for conservation of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter's understanding that bees 
require nearly continuous habitat for foraging but that suitable 
habitat need not be in every direction out from the apiary. However, we 
note that for delineating critical habitat boundaries, we considered 
bee foraging habitat, bee nesting habitat, and other habitat important 
to Vandenberg monkeyflower to support its life-history processes (see 
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section). For example, we 
considered space for Vandenberg monkeyflower individual and population 
growth, reproduction, and dispersal--not only within populations, but 
between populations and from existing populations to other sites that 
support the physical or biological features upon which Vandenberg 
monkeyflower depends. Principles of conservation biology stress the 
importance of maintaining the largest areas of contiguous habitat 
possible, with the least amount of fragmentation. Moreover, under the 
Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to identify the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower in areas occupied at the time of listing, 
focusing on the features' PCEs. We are required to identify these lands 
irrespective of land ownership. While reserve and park lands may be 
viewed or considered by most as conserved areas, the management of 
these lands does not ensure the conservation of sensitive species. 
Conversely, privately owned lands may provide space for Vandenberg 
monkeyflower individual and population growth, reproduction, and 
dispersal, and so are important to identify as lands important to the 
species. Therefore, we have identified all the lands that are 
important, regardless of ownership.

Comments Regarding Habitat Fragmentation

    (31) Comment: One commenter stated that designating critical 
habitat to address losses due to habitat fragmentation is not 
applicable for Vandenberg monkeyflower because of the presence of 
various State and Federal lands that are protected either through 
conservation purpose (Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP) or by 
conservation plan (Vandenberg AFB INRMP), in addition to land that was 
purchased for mitigation for the Burton Ranch Project site and now is 
owned by the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County.
    Our Response: 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 essential to the 
conservation of the species and which 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. In the case of Vandenberg monkeyflower, we have 
determined that only those areas on Burton Mesa identified under the 
first part of the definition of critical habitat are considered 
essential to the species conservation. Once the physical or biological 
features were determined and mapped (see the Physical or Biological 
Features and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections), the 
resulting proposed critical habitat included fragmented areas (which 
are a result of impacts such as (but not limited to) development, roads 
and nonnative, invasive plants (see Factors A and E discussions in the 
proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840)).
    It was important for us to take these fragmented areas on Burton 
Mesa into consideration due to the threats that have caused and 
continue to cause habitat fragmentation throughout the final critical 
habitat designation and the needs of this species requiring contiguous 
chaparral habitat (see Physical or Biological Features--Contiguous 
Chaparral Habitat). Because Vandenberg monkeyflower occurs in a 
conservation area or an area with a management plan in place does not 
necessarily mean that there is not already, or would not be, habitat 
fragmentation. We have also determined that habitat within the 
conservation areas meets the definition of critical habitat, per the 
criteria outlined in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat 
section, and that special management considerations are needed in these 
conserved areas (e.g., minimizing habitat fragmentation, minimizing the 
spread of invasive, nonnative plants) (see Special Management 
Considerations or Protection).
    (32) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed critical 
habitat designation refers to Young et al. (1996) for evidence that 
habitat fragmentation results in a loss of genetic variation (see 
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section in the proposed 
critical habitat rule (78 FR 64446)), and further stated that the 
authors concluded that genetic losses are primarily a result of genetic 
bottlenecks at the time of fragmentation; the proposed critical habitat 
rule asserted that separating populations from each other would have 
the greatest effect on genetic losses.
    Our Response: Young et al. (1996, p. 416) concluded that losses are 
due to genetic bottlenecks at the time of habitat fragmentation and to 
subsequent inbreeding in small populations. We used this citation to 
note that habitat fragmentation generally has population genetic 
consequences for plants, especially species with small population 
numbers. Therefore, because some residual populations of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower are small (the numbers of populations and the numbers of 
individuals are small when compared to other annual species) and the 
habitat is fragmented due to the factors mentioned above in our 
response to Comment 31, even a small loss of genetic diversity may 
impact this species.
    (33) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed critical 
habitat designation refers to Aguilar et al. (2008) for evidence that 
habitat fragmentation affects survival and recovery, and further states 
that Aguilar et al. (2008) concluded that habitat fragmentation results 
in lower genetic diversity, but losses are greatest for common species. 
The commenter also noted that Vandenberg monkeyflower is not a common 
species but an uncommon species and would, therefore, be expected to 
have smaller losses of genetic diversity as a result of habitat 
fragmentation.
    Our Response: While we meant to point out that habitat 
fragmentation affects the survival and recovery of species, the focus 
of Aguilar et al. (2008, entire) was on how habitat fragmentation may 
differentially affect the genetic diversity of common species compared 
to that of uncommon species. Therefore, we removed the reference to 
Aguilar et al. (2008) in the Physical or Biological Features--
Contiguous Chaparral Habitat and Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat sections above, and replaced it with other references that more 
generally discuss the ways that habitat fragmentation can affect the

[[Page 48161]]

survival and recovery of species (i.e., Franklin et al. 2002, pp. 20-
29; Alberts et al. 1993, pp. 103-110).
    (34) Comment: One commenter stated that that we inappropriately 
focused on Menges (1991) (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat section in the proposed critical habitat rule (78 FR 64446)) to 
support the argument that habitat fragmentation results in decreased 
germination rates. The commenter stated that because most populations 
of Vandenberg monkeyflower have at least several hundred individuals, 
and populations above several hundred individuals generally had 
germination rates equivalent to larger populations, habitat 
fragmentation would not be expected to result in decreased germination 
for this species.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter that, in general, larger 
populations of plant species would likely be less threatened by reduced 
germination rates than smaller populations. For determining critical 
habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower, we chose to group the extant 
occurrences into nine populations based on the geographic separation 
between them (see Distribution of Vandenberg Monkeyflower--Current 
Status of Vandenberg Monkeyflower section in the proposed listing rule 
(78 FR 64840)). Five of the populations consist of several hundred 
individuals, while four of the populations comprise less than a hundred 
individuals each. These four small populations have already been 
affected by habitat fragmentation and invasive, nonnative plants (78 FR 
64840). Furthermore, with the expansion of invasive, nonnative species 
on Burton Mesa, habitat quality may continue to decline and negatively 
affect the size of the remaining populations of Vandenberg monkeyflower 
(see Factor A discussion in the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840)). 
Although we have no specific information about germination rates in 
Vandenberg monkeyflower at this time, the reference to Menges (1991, 
entire) relative to the example of how habitat fragmentation leads to 
small population size and reduced germination rates is appropriate to 
include in our discussion of how habitat fragmentation could affect 
Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    (35) Comment: One commenter stated that we inappropriately focused 
on Jennersten (1988) and Cunningham (2000) to document that habitat 
fragmentation leads to reduced fruit set in Vandenberg monkeyflower 
populations. The commenter noted that because fragmented habitats 
evaluated in Jennersten (1988) were very small in size, this situation 
should not apply similarly to Vandenberg monkeyflower, which 
predominantly occurs in conserved areas with management plans.
    Our Response: In regard to the study by Jennersten (1988, entire), 
we stated in our response to Comment 31 above and Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species section of the proposed listing rule (78 FR 
64840) that Burton Mesa is currently fragmented by residential 
developments and on a smaller scale by roads, trails, and stands of 
invasive, nonnative plants. A large proportion (approximately 81 
percent) of Vandenberg monkeyflower critical habitat occurs in 
conserved areas (i.e., ecological reserve and State park lands with 
management plans); however, this does not necessarily eliminate the 
potential for populations of this species to be isolated in a smaller 
area (for example, see Volans Avenue occurrence in Current Status of 
Vandenberg Monkeyflower in the proposed listing rule (78 FR 64840)).
    (36) Comment: One commenter stated that Cunningham (2000) does not 
provide evidence that habitat fragmentation results in reduced fruit 
set for Vandenberg monkeyflower because Cunningham (2000) found 
variable results for different species (i.e., some species produced 
more fruit and some produced less).
    Our Response: In regard to the study by Cunningham (2000, entire), 
study results showed that flowers received less pollen when growing in 
fragmented sites. Because Vandenberg monkeyflower is known to occur in 
fragmented areas (see Distribution of Vandenberg Monkeyflower--Current 
Status of Vandenberg Monkeyflower section in the proposed listing rule 
(78 FR 64840) and our response to Comment 31, we found it appropriate 
to use this study along with Jennersten (1988, entire) to explain the 
general principle that plants subject to habitat fragmentation may have 
lower fruit production.

Comments Requesting Exclusion From the Final Critical Habitat 
Designations

    (37) Comment: One commenter stated the conservation measures 
currently in place for the development of Burton Ranch adequately 
protect Burton Mesa chaparral. The commenter stated that the owners of 
Burton Ranch completed a conservation easement with Land Trust of Santa 
Barbara County that protects 95 ac (38 ha) offsite, and they plan to 
maintain a buffer at the north end of the Burton Ranch property to 
protect onsite chaparral habitat. The commenter stated that these 
protections are certainly as robust as, or more robust than, other 
conservation measures applicable to the Reserve and La Purisima Mission 
SHP in which the Service has found sufficient to support excluding 
these lands from the final critical habitat designation. Therefore, the 
commenter requests that Burton Ranch be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary 
shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of 
the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. For 
exclusions based on other relevant impacts, we consider a number of 
other factors, including whether the landowners have developed any 
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) or other management plans for an area, 
or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged 
by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. We consider a 
current land management or conservation plan (HCPs as well as other 
types) to provide adequate management or protection if it meets the 
following criteria: (1) The plan is complete and provides a 
conservation benefit for the species and its habitat; (2) there is a 
reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and 
actions will be implemented into the 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.
    With regard to the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP, the purpose 
of the Reserve is to manage, operate, and maintain the sovereign lands 
for the sensitive species and habitats they support (Gevirtz et al. 
2007, p. 3), and the goal of the State Parks natural resource 
management program is to protect, restore, and maintain the natural 
resources in the State Park system (www.parks.ca.gov). These State 
lands also have existing management plans (Gevirtz 2007; California 
State Parks 1991). In our proposed rule, we considered excluding the 
Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP from the final designation of 
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on partnerships 
with the State for their management of the Reserve and La Purisima 
Mission SHP, and the management and protection afforded to these lands 
by general management plans the State has developed for the Reserve and 
La Purisima Mission SHP

[[Page 48162]]

(see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts in the proposed 
critical habitat rule (78 FR 64446)). In this final rule, we did not 
exclude the State lands at the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP from 
critical habitat (see Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act--Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts).
    With regard to the Burton Ranch project site and specifically the 
Burton Ranch Development Plan, we note that up to approximately 83 out 
of 93 ac (34 out of 38 ha, or approximately 90 percent) of Burton Mesa 
chaparral is proposed to be impacted. With the estimated effect to 
chaparral on Burton Ranch, the conservation strategy outlined for the 
Burton Ranch Development Plan would not be adequate to protect the 
species and its remaining habitat in this area. Therefore, we did not 
consider Burton Ranch for exclusion from critical habitat based on 
other relevant impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, we 
appreciate that the owners of Burton Ranch proposed to maintain a 
buffer between development and the Reserve to minimize effects to the 
chaparral habitat within the Reserve, including areas containing 
Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat. We also appreciate that Burton Ranch 
completed a conservation easement with the Land Trust for Santa Barbara 
County to protect 95 ac (38 ha) off-site of Vandenberg monkeyflower 
habitat that features Burton Mesa chaparral, coastal scrub, and oak 
savannah habitat.
    (38) Comment: One commenter stated that Vandenberg monkeyflower was 
found not to exist on Burton Ranch, and, therefore, this area should 
not be included as critical habitat.
    Our Response: According to section 4 of the Act, we designate 
critical habitat in areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing that contain the physical or biological 
features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and 
(2) which may require special management considerations or protections. 
Although Vandenberg monkeyflower has not been observed above-ground on 
this specific property, the area harbors the PCEs, as well as the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species that may require special management considerations or 
protections (see Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for Vandenberg 
Monkeyflower and Physical or Biological Features sections), and is 
contiguous with State lands (i.e., Reserve) that are known to be 
occupied. Thus, this area is considered to be within the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing. Unit 3 is 
considered occupied based on the presence of the species at multiple 
locations throughout the unit. In addition, Burton Ranch may contain a 
seed bank (see Background--Life History section of the proposed listing 
rule (78 FR 64840)) because Vandenberg monkeyflower is known to occur 
within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of Burton Ranch. Therefore, Burton Ranch meets 
the definition of critical habitat according to the Act and is included 
as critical habitat in this final rule.
    (39) Comment: One commenter stated that Burton Ranch is not 
``prime'' habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower because most of the area 
slated for development has been previously disturbed over the years. 
The commenter explained that several homes already exist on immediately 
adjacent properties, which fragments the continuity of native plant 
species in general. In addition, the commenter stated that the property 
has been previously graded and has been farmed in the past. Therefore, 
the commenter believes this ``less than prime'' area should be excluded 
from the final critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: According to section 4 of the Act, we designate 
critical habitat in areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing that contain the physical or biological 
features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and 
(2) which may require special management considerations or protection 
(see our response to Comment 37 above). The commenter did not define 
what ``prime habitat'' for Vandenberg monkeyflower is, but we presume 
the commenter was referring to our description of Burton Mesa chaparral 
(see the Background--Habitat section in the proposed listing rule (78 
FR 64840)) that has not been subject to any disturbance. We note that 
Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat is disturbed at various levels, for 
example due to development, utilities, roadways, and invasive, 
nonnative plants, and that management in these areas is needed to 
ensure that the habitat is able to provide for the growth and 
reproduction of the species (see Special Management Considerations or 
Protection). The existence of disturbed habitat (whether past or 
current), however, would not necessarily preclude individuals of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower from occurring in an area or entirely remove 
the physical or biological features from an area. Because Burton Ranch 
contains the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower (see response to Comment 38) 
and may require special management consideration or protections, the 
area meets the definition of critical habitat according to the Act.
    (40) Comment: The Vandenberg Village Community Services District 
(VVCSD) requested that 106 ac (43 ha) be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation. The commenter stated that if finalized, 
the critical habitat designation may preclude future construction of 
water wells necessary to supply the community of Vandenberg Village 
with drinking water.
    Our Response: We note that the 106 ac (43 ha) of land requested for 
exclusion from the final critical habitat designation is land owned by 
the State Lands Commission and managed by the California Department of 
Fish and Wildlife. Relative to the commenter's concern that a final 
critical habitat designation may preclude development of wells, 
designation of critical habitat does not automatically prohibit 
development on private or State lands because there are no statutory 
requirements for section 7 consultations for actions undertaken on non-
Federal lands or without a Federal nexus. The designation of critical 
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area, nor does it 
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement 
measures by non-Federal landowners. Critical habitat receives 
protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that 
Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any 
action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. At this 
time, we have not received any information indicating there is a 
Federal nexus for the construction of new water wells. Without such a 
nexus, potential future construction of water wells would not require 
section 7 consultation. We welcome the opportunity to work with VVCSD 
to minimize the effects to Vandenberg monkeyflower and its habitat 
relative to the potential construction of new wells.
    (41) Comment: One commenter stated that Unit 3 (Encina) contains 
plant communities not consistent with Vandenberg monkeyflower habitat, 
such as oak woodland and chamise chaparral, and may provide areas where 
Vandenberg monkeyflower does not occur and where wells could be 
constructed.
    Our Response: Unit 3 contains the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower (see Physical 
or

[[Page 48163]]

Biological Features). We note that we identified oak woodland and 
chamise chaparral as aspects of the composition of vegetation on Burton 
Mesa (see Background--Habitat section in the proposed listing rule (78 
FR 64840)). We also note that we discussed the structure of the 
chaparral habitat as a mosaic of maritime chaparral vegetation (which 
includes maritime chaparral and maritime chaparral mixed with coastal 
scrub, oak woodland, and small patches of native grasslands (Wilken and 
Wardlaw 2010, p. 2)) and sandy openings (canopy gaps) that varies from 
place to place (see Background--Habitat in the proposed listing rule 
(78 FR 64840)). Thus, within a given substrate, the chaparral 
composition is a reflection of stand age or shrub canopy cover, 
disturbance history, history of wildfire, and distance from the coast 
(Davis et al. 1988, p. 188; Gevirtz et al. 2007, p. 97). Therefore, 
even though Unit 3 may contain habitat such as oak woodland and chamise 
chaparral, the structure of the habitat may shift over time, and the 
unit currently contains the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species that may require special management 
considerations or protection. As such, Unit 3 meets the definition of 
critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower according to the Act.

Economic Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA)

    (42) Comment: Three commenters stated that public lands near 
Vandenberg Village provide important recreational opportunities. They 
expressed the concern that if critical habitat is designated, access to 
public lands would be reduced, and recreational activities such as 
hiking and bicycling would no longer be allowed. One of these 
commenters was also concerned that this would negatively affect local 
bike shops.
    Our Response: The majority (approximately 81 percent) of the total 
proposed critical habitat designation is located on State lands 
consisting of the Reserve and La Purisima Mission SHP. Both of these 
areas have land management plans that specify allowable recreational 
activities. According to the Final Land Management Plan for the 
Reserve, bicycling is not allowed (see Gevirtz et al. 2007, Final Land 
Management Plan for Burton Mesa Ecological Reserve). The La Purisima 
Mission SHP Park General Plan states that bicycles are permitted on 
approximately 5 miles of fire roads (see California State Parks 1991, 
La Purisima Mission State Historic Park General Plan). Both plans also 
specify areas in which hiking is allowed.
    If these land management plans are changed or updated, section 7 
consultation with the Service is unlikely because a Federal nexus does 
not exist. Hence, it is unlikely that the designation of critical 
habitat would limit the recreational activities that are allowed in the 
Reserve and the La Purisima Mission SHP. To the extent that biking or 
other recreational activities occur on private lands, a Federal nexus 
requiring consultation with the Service is also unlikely. Therefore, it 
is unlikely that this designation of critical habitat for Vandenberg 
monkeyflower will have a significant effect on use of the areas 
designated for bicycling.
    (43) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed critical 
habitat designation would lead to numerous environmental and social 
benefits, including: (a) Requiring Federal agencies to review their 
actions to assess effects on critical habitat, (b) helping focus 
Federal and State conservation efforts, (c) increasing public awareness 
of the species, (d) creating educational opportunities, and (e) 
creating greater protection for Vandenberg monkeyflower. This commenter 
supported the designation of critical habitat for Vandenberg 
monkeyflower, and stated that as much land as possible should be 
included in the designation.
    Our Response: While the primary intended benefit of critical 
habitat is to support the conservation of endangered or threatened 
species, the designation would lead to numerous ancillary benefits, as 
discussed in the screening analysis under the high-end section 7 
consultation scenario (IEc 2014, pp. 22-23). This scenario assumes that 
project proponents are unaware of the presence of Vandenberg 
monkeyflower and would, therefore, not consult with the Service absent 
critical habitat. Therefore, under this scenario, all section 7 
consultations are an incremental effect of the critical habitat 
designation, and the designation would create multiple ancillary 
benefits. These include requiring Federal agencies to review their 
actions to assess effects on critical habitat, which would not only 
help protect Vandenberg monkeyflower but also benefit the general 
health of the chaparral ecosystem. Further benefits of the designation 
of critical habitat may include improved water and soil quality, and 
improved ecosystem health for coexisting species.
    (44) Comment: One commenter stated that the Reserve is at risk of 
being removed from the regulatory protections afforded under the Title 
14 ecological reserve designation (see California Code of Regulations, 
Title 14, Sec.  630). The commenter supported the proposal to designate 
critical habitat because, among other reasons, they believe it would 
provide an additional level of attention and protection for areas known 
to support the species and its pollinators. More specifically, the 
commenter stated that the area is at risk from requests from outside 
parties to obtain additional leases for projects within occupied 
habitat, such as the construction of water wells by the VVCSD.
    Our Response: The primary purpose of designating critical habitat 
is to identify the specific areas within the geographic area occupied 
by the species at the time of listing that contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may need special management considerations or protection and to 
identify areas that may be essential for the conservation of the 
species. Critical habitat designations affect only Federal agency 
actions or federally funded or permitted activities. While the Final 
Land Management Plan for the Reserve provides baseline protection 
within the Reserve, the critical habitat designation could serve as an 
additional layer of protection if a Federal nexus (i.e., funding or 
authorization) exists for future actions that could affect critical 
habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower.
    At this time, we have not received any information indicating there 
is a Federal nexus for the construction of new water wells within the 
VVCSD. Without such a nexus, potential future construction of water 
wells would not require section 7 consultation (see also our response 
to Comment 40). However, as discussed in the DEA, it is possible that 
the presence of critical habitat would require the project to undergo 
additional review under the CEQA (IEc 2014, p. 20). As a result, the 
permitting agency, at their discretion, could require modification of 
the project plan to avoid adverse impacts to Vandenberg monkeyflower 
critical habitat.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is 
not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 
12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system 
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty,

[[Page 48164]]

and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for 
achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to 
consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain 
flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches 
are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. 
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based 
on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must 
allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have 
developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

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 of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the 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.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the 
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal 
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required to evaluate the 
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory 
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is 
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation 
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 
carried by the Agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action 
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement 
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical 
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal 
action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There 
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not 
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may 
pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic 
impacts of this critical habitat designation. Based on this 
information, we affirm our certification that this final critical 
habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this 
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory 
action under consideration.
    Based on information in the economic analysis, energy-related 
impacts associated with Vandenberg monkeyflower conservation activities 
within critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of 
critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a 
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty

[[Page 48165]]

on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, 
the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that 
their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under 
section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, 
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that 
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive 
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical 
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above 
onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. Our economic analysis concludes that the economic costs of 
implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act will most likely be 
limited to the additional administrative effort required to consider 
adverse modification. This finding is based on the following factors:
    (a) All units are considered occupied, providing baseline 
protection;
    (b) Activities occurring within designated critical habitat with a 
potential to affect critical habitat are also likely to adversely 
affect the species, either directly or indirectly; and
    (c) In occupied habitat, project modifications requested to avoid 
adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid 
jeopardy.
    Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat 
designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government 
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower in a takings 
implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of 
critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties 
that receive Federal funding, assistance, or require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Our DEA found (and our FEA 
reaffirms) that no significant economic impacts are likely to result 
from the designation of critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower. 
Because the Act's critical habitat protection requirements apply only 
to Federal agency actions, few conflicts between critical habitat and 
private property rights should result from this designation. Based on 
information contained in the DEA and described within this document, it 
is not likely that economic impacts to a property owner would be of a 
sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. Therefore, the 
takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of 
critical habitat for Vandenberg monkeyflower does not pose significant 
takings implications.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, 
appropriate State resource agencies in California. We received comments 
from the State of California (CDFW, who manages the Reserve) but did 
not receive comments from State Parks (La Purisima Mission SHP), in 
response to our request for information on the proposed rule. However, 
we verbally discussed this critical habitat rule with State Parks 
staff. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical 
habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. 
The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, 
either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. As a 
result, the rule does not have substantial direct effects either on the 
States, or on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. The designation may have some benefit to 
these governments because the areas that contain the features essential 
to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the 
physical and biological 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 (because these local governments no longer have to 
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), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable 
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are 
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the 
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the 
species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of Vandenberg monkeyflower. The 
designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the 
rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more 
detailed location information, if desired.

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.

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

[[Page 48166]]

prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with 
designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

References Cited

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

Authors

    The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the 
Pacific Southwest Regional Office and Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 
by adding an entry for ``Diplacus vandenbergensis'' in alphabetical 
order under Flowering 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
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Diplacus vandenbergensis.........  Vandenberg            U.S.A. (CA)........  Phrymaceae.........  E                       847     17.96(a)           NA
                                    monkeyflower.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



0
3. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding the family Phrymaceae 
and an entry for ``Diplacus vandenbergensis (Vandenberg monkeyflower)'' 
in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

* * * * *
    Family Phrymaceae: Diplacus vandenbergensis (Vandenberg 
monkeyflower)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Santa Barbara County, 
California, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
Vandenberg monkeyflower consist of two components:
    (i) Native maritime chaparral communities of Burton Mesa comprising 
maritime chaparral and maritime chaparral mixed with coastal scrub, oak 
woodland, and small patches of native grasslands. The mosaic structure 
of the native plant communities (arranged in a mosaic of dominant 
vegetation and sandy openings (canopy gaps)) may change spatially as a 
result of succession, and physical processes such as windblown sand and 
wildfire.
    (ii) Loose sandy soils on Burton Mesa. As mapped by the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), these could include the 
following soil series: Arnold Sand, Marina Sand, Narlon Sand, Tangair 
Sand, Botella Loam, Terrace Escarpments, and Gullied Land.
    (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 
September 10, 2015.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of USGS 1:24,000 maps, and critical habitat units 
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 15N 
coordinates.
    (5) Index map follows:

[[Page 48167]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AU15.000


[[Page 48168]]


    (6) Unit 1 (Vandenberg) and Unit 2 (Santa Lucia): Santa Barbara 
County, California.
    (i) Unit 1 includes 223 ac (90 ha), and Unit 2 includes 1,484 ac 
(601 ha).
    (ii) Map of Units 1 and 2 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AU15.001
    

[[Page 48169]]


    (7) Unit 3 (Encina) and Unit 4 (La Purisima): Santa Barbara County, 
California.
    (i) Unit 3 includes 2,024 ac (819 ha), and Unit 4 includes 2,024 ac 
(819 ha).
    (ii) Map of Units 3 and 4 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AU15.002
    

[[Page 48170]]


* * * * *

    Dated: July 29, 2015.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2015-19352 Filed 8-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P