Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Endangered Status, Revised Critical Habitat Designation, and Taxonomic Revision for Monardella linoides, 33880-33921 [2011-13912]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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



[[Page 33879]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 111

June 9, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

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

[[Page 33880]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

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

[[Page 33881]]

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

Public Hearing

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

Background

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

Previous Federal Action

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

Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Changes Affecting Monardella linoides ssp. 
viminea

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

[[Page 33882]]

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

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

[[Page 33883]]

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

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

Status Review--Monardella viminea

History of the Action

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

Species Description

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

Habitat

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

[[Page 33884]]

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

Life History

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

Geographic Range and Status

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

[[Page 33885]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN11.037

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

Transplants

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

[[Page 33886]]

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

Summary of Factors Affecting Monardella viminea

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

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

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

[[Page 33887]]

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

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

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

C. Disease or Predation

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

[[Page 33888]]

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 33889]]

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