Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Diplacus vandenbergensis (Vandenberg Monkeyflower), 48141-48170 [2015-19352]
Download as PDF
Vol. 80
Tuesday,
No. 154
August 11, 2015
Part II
Department of the Interior
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
48142
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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:
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)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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 https://
www.regulations.gov and at https://
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 https://
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 https://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0049,
and at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor,
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an action that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat,
the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even
in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of
the Federal action agency and the
landowner is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) which are
essential to the conservation of the
species and (2) which may require
special management considerations or
protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the
extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, those
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an
area, we focus on the principal
biological or physical constituent
elements (primary constituent elements
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48143
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
48144
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 °C
(73 °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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 firefollowers 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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 Bhorizon 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 seeddispersal 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 northnorthwest (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. Longdistance 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48145
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’ lifehistory 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.
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
48146
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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,
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48147
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
48148
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based available to
the public on https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2013–0049, on our
Internet site https://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 lifehistory 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]
CH unit
Land ownership
(acres (hectares))
Unit name
Federal
1
2
3
4
State
Local agency
Private
Total area
acres
(hectares)
..................
..................
..................
..................
Vandenberg ................................................
Santa Lucia ................................................
Encina ........................................................
La Purisima ................................................
223 (90)
........................
........................
........................
........................
1,422 (576)
1,460 (591)
1,792 (725)
........................
10 (4)
24 (10)
4 (2)
........................
52 (21)
540 (218)
228 (92)
223 (90)
1,484 (601)
2,024 (819)
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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48149
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:
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48150
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 lifehistory 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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, Serviceapproved INRMPs within the area that
meets the definition of critical habitat
for Vandenberg monkeyflower.
Approved INRMPs
Vandenberg AFB has a Serviceapproved 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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 southcentral 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 (40,104ha) 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48151
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48152
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
https://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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
Burton Ranch Specific Plan area (Unit
3), potentially developable parcels along
the northern border of Vandenberg
Village (Units 2 and 3), the FreeportMcMoRan 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 https://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 https://
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48153
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
48154
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. The designation of
critical habitat on private lands does not
impose a legally binding duty on nonFederal Government entities or private
parties, although, again, there may be
indirect impacts if there is a federal
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48155
(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.
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48156
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(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 selfguided 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 nonFederal 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 mountainbiking community, and that is why
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48157
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.
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
48158
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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’ lifehistory 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 lifehistory 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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 longdistance 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 longdistance 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 shortdistance seed dispersal and longdistance 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 mediumsized 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48159
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 mediumsized 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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48160
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48161
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48162
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48163
of Regulations, Title 14, § 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,
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
48164
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
on non-Federal Government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
48165
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
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
48166
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 https://
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]
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.
2. Amend § 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:
■
§ 17.12
*
Endangered and threatened plants.
*
*
(h) * * *
*
Species
Historic range
Scientific name
Family
Status
*
U.S.A. (CA) .............
*
Phrymaceae ...........
When listed
Common name
*
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
FLOWERING PLANTS
*
Diplacus
vandenbergensis.
*
*
Vandenberg
monkeyflower.
*
*
3. In § 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:
■
§ 17.96
Critical habitat—plants.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
*
847
*
*
*
E
*
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
*
17.96(a)
NA
*
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:
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
48167
Critical Habitat for Vandenberg Monkeyflower
2
4
'
Kilometers--==::~
•
0
N
VerDate Sep<11>2014
'
2
4
CRITICAL HABITAT
VANDENBERG AFB
BOUNDARY
Areaof~
Detail
ROADS
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
ER11AU15.000
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
0
48168
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(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:
Critical Habitat for Vandenberg Monkeyflower
Vandenberg and Santa Lucia Units
0
0.5
Miles ---=::::::;;:::::::J
Kilometers--=:=::::~
0
0.5
1
1
S~~J:'_?~ CRITICAL HABITAT
lli:.:.i!..~!J
D
N
VerDate Sep<11>2014
VANDENBERG AFB
BOUNDARY
ROADS
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Area of
Detail
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
ER11AU15.001
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Scale 1:60,000
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(7) Unit 3 (Encina) and Unit 4 (La
Purisima): Santa Barbara County,
California.
48169
(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:
Critical Habitat for Vandenberg Monkeyflower
Encina and La Purisima Units
0
0.5
1
Miles---===:::::~
Kilometers--==:::::~
0
0.5
1
cnr~.?J
D
VANDENBERG AFB
BOUNDARY
N
VerDate Sep<11>2014
CRITICAL HABITAT
ROADS
Area of
Detail
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
ER11AU15.002
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Scale 1:60,000
48170
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 154 / Tuesday, August 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
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]
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Aug 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM
11AUR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 154 (Tuesday, August 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48141-48170]
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 https://www.regulations.gov and at https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0049, and at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office
(https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0049, on our Internet site https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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