[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54517-54548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21744]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0067; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AY63
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Franciscan Manzanita
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for Arctostaphylos franciscana (Franciscan
manzanita) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
[[Page 54518]]
In total, approximately 318 acres (129 hectares) are being proposed for
designation as critical habitat. The proposed critical habitat is
located in San Francisco County and City, California.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 5, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by October 22, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2012-0067, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click
on the Search button to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2012-0067; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments below for more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento,
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0067, and the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information that we may
develop for this critical habitat designation will also be available at
the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Fish and Wildlife Office set
out above, and may also be included in the preamble or at http://www.regulations.gov, or both.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800
Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600;
facsimile 916-414-6612. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. This is a proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for Arctostaphylos franciscana (Franciscan manzanita).
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we are publishing a final rule
to list Arctostaphylos franciscana as endangered. Under the Endangered
Species Act, any species that is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species will, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, have habitat designated that is considered to be critical
habitat. We have determined that designating critical habitat for
Arctostaphylos franciscana is both prudent and determinable.
Designations of and revisions to critical habitat can only be completed
by issuing a rule. This proposed designation for Franciscan manzanita
includes 11 units in San Francisco County and City, California,
totaling 318 acres (129 hectares).
The basis for our action. Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species
Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to
critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data
after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security
impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical
habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh
the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,
unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that
the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in
the extinction of the species.
We are preparing a draft economic analysis for the proposed
designation. In order to consider the economic impacts of the proposed
designation, we are preparing a draft analysis of the economic impacts
of the proposed critical habitat designation. We will announce the
availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it is completed.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking the expert opinions of
appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule to
ensure that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer
reviewers to comment during the proposed rule's public comment period
on our proposed rule to designate critical habitat. We will consider
all comments and information we receive during the comment period in
our preparation of the final determination. Accordingly, the final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of historic habitat and the range
of Arctostaphylos franciscana;
(b) What areas, that are occupied at the time of listing (that is,
are currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change;
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why; and
(e) The specific information on A. franciscana pollinators and
their habitat requirements.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on Arctostaphylos franciscana and proposed critical
habitat.
(5) Whether all the remaining areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of Arctostaphylos
franciscana or other areas essential for the conservation of A.
franciscana should be designated as critical habitat or if additional
areas outside the historic range should also be
[[Page 54519]]
considered for designation. We have identified several areas outside
the area we are considering the species' historic range and have
proposed one such area, Unit 11 (Bayview Unit) (see Proposed Critical
Habitat Designation section below). Additional areas we have not
currently proposed but would like public comment on including
serpentine or greenstone outcrops in San Francisco (McKinley Park, and
Starr King Open Space near Potrero Hill; and Grand View Park, the
Rocks, and Golden Gate Heights Park along 14th Avenue) and areas
farther south of Mount Davidson into San Mateo County (Milagra Ridge,
Sweeney Ridge) or north into Marin County (Angel Island and Golden Gate
National Recreation Area along the Marin Peninsula). Because of the
limited amount of habitat available within the City and County of San
Francisco, these additional areas may provide additional sites for
reintroduction, and we would like public input on whether these areas
should be considered essential for the conservation of the species.
(6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have not proposed to exclude any areas
from critical habitat, but the Secretary is considering exercising his
discretion to exclude areas within the Presidio and City or County Park
Lands from final critical habitat designation. We will coordinate with
the Presidio Trust, the City, and County and will examine conservation
actions for the A. franciscana, including current management planning
documents, in our consideration of these areas for exclusion from the
final designation of critical habitat for A. franciscana, under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. We specifically solicit comments on the inclusion
or exclusion of these areas.
(8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such
as your street address, phone number, or email address from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat for Arctostaphylos franciscana in
this proposed rule. For further information on the species' biology and
habitat, population abundance and trends, distribution, demographic
features, habitat use and conditions, threats, and conservation
measures, please see the final listing rule for A. franciscana,
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register; the September 8, 2011,
proposed listing for the species (76 FR 55623); or the Recovery Plan
for Coastal Plants of the Northern San Francisco Peninsula (Service
2003). These documents are available from the Environmental
Conservation Online System (ECOS) (http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/indexPublic.do), the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Web site
(http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/), or from the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (http://www.regulations.gov).
Prudency Determination
In our proposed listing rule for Arctostaphylos franciscana (76 FR
55623; September 8, 2011), we stated that we concluded that critical
habitat was not determinable at the time of the proposal due to a lack
of knowledge of what physical or biological features were essential to
the conservation of the species, or what areas outside the site that is
currently occupied may be essential for the conservation of the
species. Subsequently, we requested information from the public during
the public comment period and solicited information from peer reviewers
on whether the determination of critical habitat was prudent and
determinable, what physical or biological features were essential to
the conservation of the species, and what areas contained those
features or were otherwise essential for the conservation of the
species. Based on the information we received on the physical or
biological features essential to A. franciscana, and information on
areas otherwise essential for the species, we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat is prudent and determinable, and we are
proposing critical habitat at this time. For more information regarding
our determination to designate critical habitat, please see our
response to comments in the final listing determination for A.
franciscana published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
Species Information
Arctostaphylos franciscana is a low, spreading-to-ascending
evergreen shrub in the heath family (Ericaceae) that may reach 0.2 to
1.5 meters (m) (0.6 to 3 feet (ft)) in height when mature (Chasse et
al. 2009, p. 5; Eastwood 1905, p. 201). The leaves are smooth, flat,
bright green, wider towards the tip, and 1.5-2 centimeters (cm) (0.6-
0.8 inches (in)) long and 0.5-1 cm (0.2-0.4 in) wide. The flowering
period is from January to April. In the wild, A. franciscana is an
obligate-seeding species (it reproduces primarily from seed after a
fire or other disturbance rather than resprouting from burls) (Vasey
2010, p. 1), although the exact germination requirements for A.
franciscana have not yet been studied. The fruit and seeds of
Arctostaphylos are eaten and dispersed primarily by mammals, such as
raccoons, coyotes, foxes, deer, and rodents (Service 1950, p. 8;
Sampson and Jespersen 1963, p. 123; T. Parker pers. comm., 2011; Vasey
2011a, p. 1), and by various fruit-eating birds such as quail and
turkey (NRCS 1999, p. 3; Zornes and Bishop 2009, p. 6).
Distribution and Habitat
Based on early species occurrence records, voucher specimens, and
publications on San Francisco and Bay Area flora, prior to extensive
development, Arctostaphylos franciscana historically occurred on or
near open bedrock outcrops scattered throughout the San Francisco
peninsula (Brandegee 1907; Clark 1928; Wieslander 1938; Schlocker 1974,
p. 119; Service 1984, pp. 11-12; Service 2003, pp. 15-20, 62).
Portions of the San Francisco peninsula where Arctostaphylos
franciscana occurs are known as
[[Page 54520]]
maritime chaparral, a plant community dominated by shrub species such
as Arctostaphylos (manzanita) (Vasey 2007b, in litt., p. 1). Maritime
chaparral occurs in coastal locations and is characteristic of having
small daily and seasonal temperature ranges, summer fog, and high
relative humidity (Vasey 2007a, in litt., pp. 1-3). Nearly all historic
herbarium collections of A. franciscana were from such maritime
chaparral locations on or near rock outcrops, which suggests limited
historic and prehistoric distribution and only local abundance (Service
2003, p. 62). Locations where A. franciscana was found included: (1)
The former Laurel Hill Cemetery (Brandegee 1907; Eastwood 1934, p.
114); (2) the former Masonic Cemetery (near the ``base of Lone
Mountain'') (Greene 1894, p. 232); (3) Mount Davidson (Stewart 1918);
and (4) the ``rediscovery site'' near Doyle Drive (Gluesenkamp et al.
2010, p. 6). In addition, there is a historical record of
``Arctostaphylos pumila'' (later considered to be A. franciscana by
species experts) at the former Protestant Orphan Asylum (Laguna at
Haight Street, long urbanized by the late 1800s) (Behr 1892, pp. 2-6).
The Doyle Drive plant has been transplanted to a locality within the
Presidio, and is still surviving (Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 17-21;
Gluesenkamp et al. 2010, pp. 11-14). Chasse et al. (2009, pp. 6, 7)
have noted that information on the plant community that historically
included A. franciscana is largely missing from the literature. At the
Laurel Hill Cemetery site, A. franciscana was associated with Quercus
agrifolia (coast live oak), Ceanothus thyrsiflorus (coast blue
blossom), and Baccharis pilularis (coyote brush), according to
herbarium collections (Wieslander 1938). Several herbarium collections
of A. franciscana often consist of inadvertent inclusions of A. hookeri
ssp. ravenii (Note: Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. ravenii has recently
undergone a taxonomic revision to A. montana ssp. ravenii) (Raven's
manzanita) material as the two plants often co-occurred in the same
locations (Roof 1976, pp. 21-24, Service 1984, p. 6) (see Figure 1
below).
These observations, along with the geology and climate of
historical sites, indicate that the species' community likely consisted
of a mosaic of coastal scrub, barren serpentine maritime chaparral, and
perennial grassland, with occasional woodland of coast live oak and
toyon shrubs and small trees (Chasse 2009, pp. 6, 7). However, native
habitats have been largely converted to urban areas of the City of San
Francisco, and habitat that might support A. franciscana is now mostly
lost to development (Chasse 2010, p. 2; Gluesenkamp et al. 2010, p. 7).
[[Page 54521]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.001
BILLING CODE 6560-55-C
Previous Federal Actions
On December 23, 2009, we received a petition dated December 14,
2009, from the Wild Equity Institute, the Center for Biological
Diversity, and the California Native Plant Society, requesting that
Arctostaphylos franciscana be listed as an endangered species on an
emergency basis under the Act and that critical habitat be designated.
Included in the petition was supporting information regarding the
species' taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution,
present status, and actual and potential causes of decline. On January
26, 2010, we acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to
Wild Equity Institute. On August 10, 2010, we published in the Federal
Register a 90-day finding indicating that the petition presented
substantial information and that we would conduct a status review on
the species (75 FR 48294). On September 8, 2011, we published a
combined 12-month finding and proposed listing for the species in the
Federal Register (76 FR 55623). In the proposed listing for the
species, we requested information on whether it was prudent to
designate critical habitat for the species. After receiving comments
from peer reviewers as well as the public, we have determined to the
designation of critical habitat is both prudent and determinable. For
additional information on previous Federal actions please refer to the
September 8, 2011, combined 12-month
[[Page 54522]]
finding and proposed listing for the species (76 FR 55623).
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 insure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner 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) 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 and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the
specific elements of 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. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
Climate change will be a particular challenge for biodiversity because
the interaction of additional stressors associated with climate change
and current stressors may push species beyond their ability to survive
(Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic implications of climate
change and habitat fragmentation are the most threatening facet of
climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p.4). Current
climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern
Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation
events, and increased summer continental drying (Field et al. 1999, pp.
1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181).
Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe
storms and droughts (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004,
p. 1015; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504).
We anticipate these changes could affect a number of native plants
and their habitats, including Arctostaphylos franciscana occurrences
and habitat. For example, if the amount and timing of precipitation
changes or the average temperature increases in northern California,
the following changes may affect the long-term viability of A.
franciscana in its current habitat configuration:
(1) Drier conditions or changes in summer fog may result in
additional stress on the transplanted plant.
(2) Drier conditions may also result in lower seed set, lower
germination rate, and smaller population sizes.
[[Page 54523]]
(3) A shift in the timing of annual rainfall may favor nonnative
species that impact the quality of habitat for this species.
(4) Warmer temperatures may affect the timing of pollinator life-
cycles causing pollinators to become out-of-sync with timing of
flowering A. franciscana.
(5) Drier conditions may result in increased fire frequency, making
the ecosystems in which A. franciscana currently grows more vulnerable
to the initial threat of burning, and to subsequent threats associated
with erosion and nonnative or native plant invasion.
However, currently we are unable to specifically identify the ways
that climate change may impact Arctostaphylos franciscana; therefore,
we are unable to determine if any additional areas may be appropriate
to include in this proposed critical habitat designation.
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 a species. Areas that are important to the conservation of
Arctostaphylos franciscana, both inside and outside a critical habitat
designation, would 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 ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species
outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation
tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species.
Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best
available information at the time of designation will not control the
direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features that are 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 required for
Arctostaphylos franciscana from studies of this species' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described below. Additional information
can be found in the August 10, 2010, 90-day finding published in the
Federal Register (75 FR 48294); the September 8, 2011, combined 12-
month finding and proposed listing for the species published in the
Federal Register (76 FR 55623); the 2003 Recovery Plan for Coastal
Plants of the Northern San Francisco Peninsula (Service 2003); and the
Raven's Manzanita Recovery Plan (Service 1984). We have determined that
the physical or biological features discussed below are essential to A.
franciscana.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Historically, the 46-mi\2\ (119-km\2\) tip of the San Francisco
peninsula contained a diversity of habitat types including dunes,
coastal scrub, maritime chaparral, grasslands, salt and fresh water
marsh, oak woodlands, rocky outcrops, and serpentine habitats (Holland
1986, pp. 1-156; National Park Service 1999, pp. 18-26; Sawyer and
Keeler-Wolf 1997, p. 211). The vegetation of the area is influenced by
coastal wind, moisture, and temperature (Service 1984, pp. 11-16;
Chasse et al. 2009, p. 4). The maritime chaparral and open grassland
plant communities, of which Arctostaphylos franciscana is a part, may
have been present historically to a greater extent (even before habitat
loss through development), but the cumulative effects of periodic
burning by native Americans, grazing during the mid-1800s to early
1900s, gathering of firewood during the U.S. military period, and fire
suppression actions during the 1900s to the present may have converted
many of the areas to nonnative grassland or depauperate coastal scrub
(Sweeney 1956, pp. 143-250; Schlocker 1974, pp. 6-7; Christensen and
Muller 1975, pp. 29-55; Keeley and Keeley 1987, pp. 240-249; Greenlee
and Langenheim 1990, pp. 239-253; Tyler 1996, pp. 2182-2195; Keeley
2005, pp. 285-286; Chasse 2010, p. 2).
The current geographic distribution of Arctostaphylos franciscana
has been greatly reduced by habitat loss in San Francisco. In 2009, the
single remaining wild plant was discovered along the freeway access to
the Golden Gate Bridge during construction activities and was
transplanted to a natural area within the Presidio of San Francisco
(Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 3-4, 10-11; Gluesenkamp et al. 2010, pp. 10-
15). Historic populations of A. franciscana, as identified from
herbarium records, occurred locally, often with the endangered A.
montana ssp. ravenii. A single individual of A. montana ssp. ravenii
exists in the wild today within the Presidio (44 FR 61910; October 26,
1979). Both manzanitas occurred on or near scattered exposures of
bedrock outcrops (Behr 1892, pp. 2-6; Greene 1894, p. 232; Stewart
1918; Service 1984, pp. 11-12; McCarten 1993, pp. 4-5).
Most bedrock outcrops of the interior parts of San Francisco are
characterized by areas often at ridges with steep topography, thin dry
soils, and bare rock, conditions that maintain permanently sparse
vegetative cover, at least locally (Service 2003, p. 16). Many persist
as undevelopable knobs on the crests of hills up to 281 m (922 ft)
above sea level, or as high, unstable, coastal bluffs subject to
frequent landslides. They are composed mostly of serpentine and
greenstone or other mafic and ultramafic rocks (Schlocker 1974, pp. 8-
16, Plate 3). These serpentine and rocky areas are often harsh and
contain unproductive soils with poor nutrient levels and reduced water-
holding capacity (Holland 1986, p. 8; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1997, p.
211; Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 12-13). McCarten (1993, pp. 4-5)
identified some of the rock outcrops within the area as being sparsely
vegetated with open barrens that may have historically contained
Arctostaphylos species such as A. montana ssp. ravenii and ``A. hookeri
ssp. franciscana [A. franciscana].'' He referred to the serpentine
areas on the
[[Page 54524]]
Presidio as ``Decumbent Manzanita Serpentine Scrub'' and stated that
the plant community is one of the rarer plant communities in the area.
Historically, these areas included plant associations classified as
coastal grassland (prairie) and variations of coastal scrub. Historic
voucher specimens and observations cited A. franciscana occurring with
Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak), Ceanothus thyrsiflorus (coast blue
blossom), Baccharis pilularis (coyote brush), Heteromeles arbutifolia
(toyon), Ericameria sp. (mock heather), Eriogonum sp. (buckwheat), and
Achillea sp. (yarrow) (Eastwood 1905, pp. 201-202). The bedrock outcrop
vegetation in San Francisco is variable today, including elements of
remnant native vegetation as well as naturalized nonnative vegetation
(National Park Service 1999, pp. 1, 17-18).
Some knowledge of the habitat requirements of Arctostaphylos
franciscana can be inferred from historic locations and information on
voucher specimens. The historic sites were mostly underlain by
serpentine or greenstone substrates (Roof 1976, pp. 20-24). Sites which
were occupied by A. franciscana historically were characterized as bare
stony or rocky habitats often along ridges and associated with bedrock
outcrops and other areas with thin soils on the San Francisco peninsula
(Eastwood 1905, pp. 201-202; Brandegee 1907). Rowntree (1939, p. 121)
observed A. franciscana ``forming flat masses over serpentine
outcroppings and humus-filled gravel and flopping down over the sides
of gray and chrome rocks.'' In a study to determine potential
restoration sites for A. montana ssp. ravenii, the general site
conditions identified included open exposures with mild slopes of
shallow rocky soils with some coastal fog (McCarten 1986, pp. 4-5).
These rocky outcrops within the San Francisco peninsula occur in the
geologic strata known as the Franciscan formation. The Franciscan
formation, which has contributed to the characteristic appearance and
distribution of flora on portions of the peninsula, is a result of
fault zones occurring in the area. These faults have uplifted and
folded various geologic strata and formed the characteristic
``islands'' of rock outcrops and soils associated with A. franciscana.
The thrust-fault shear zone runs across San Francisco from Potrero Hill
in the southeast to the Presidio in the northwest (Schlocker 1974, pp.
1-2). Figure 2, below, identifies bedrock outcrops occurring in the San
Francisco peninsula.
BILLING CODE 6560-55-P
[[Page 54525]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.002
BILLING CODE 6560-55-C
Franciscan formation rocks include sandstones, shale, chert,
greenstone (mostly basalts), serpentinite, gabbro-diabase, and mixed
sheared rocks along fault zones. The outcrops range from erosion-
resistant basalt and chert, to serpentine rocks that are hard and dense
to soft, friable, and plastic (Schlocker 1974, pp. 56-65). The soils
surrounding the rock outcrops are often thin. Serpentine rocks and
soils derived from them are particularly low in calcium and high in
magnesium and heavy metals, and greatly influence local vegetation. The
majority of sites where A. franciscana was historically found occurred
on serpentine outcrops, except at Mount Davidson, which is comprised of
greenstone and mixed Franciscan rocks. The characteristics of
serpentine soils or rock outcrops often result in exclusion or growth
suppression of many plant species, creating open or barren areas that
are not as subject to plant competition for light, moisture, and
nutrients, which often causes selection for a narrow range of endemic
plant species such as A. franciscana (Raven and Axelrod 1978, pp. 24-
26; Kruckeberg 1984, pp. 11-17, Service 1984, pp. 11-12; McCarten 1993,
pp. 4-5; Service 1998, pp. 1-1, 1-2, 1-10--1-12; Service 2003, pp. 15-
16). Therefore, based on the above information, we identify sites with
open rocky bedrock associated with serpentine or greenstone outcrops to
be an essential physical or biological feature for this species.
Cover or Shelter
As stated above, Arctostaphylos franciscana historically occurred
in open or semi-open areas associated with
[[Page 54526]]
rock outcroppings in coastal scrub or serpentine maritime chaparral.
Although A. franciscana is considered to be endemic to serpentine soils
(Kruckeberg 1984, pp. 11-17; Safford et al. 2005, p. 226), its historic
occurrence at Mount Davidson on greenstone and at other locations on
mixed Franciscan rocks, and its ability to grow at nursery locations
(with management), calls into question such a strict edaphic affinity.
McCarten (1993, p. 8) stated that the species most likely evolved in
these open to semi-open, thin-soiled, nutrient-poor locations due to a
response to lack of competition from nearby plants in better soil
locations rather than a specific plant-serpentine soil relationship.
Being more open, these sites are exposed to direct sun with little
shading from nearby vegetation and are often dry. The nutrient-poor
soils of these outcroppings also limit the number of other species able
to tolerate these locations. Disturbance of these areas through
introduction of additional nutrients (soil disturbance, nitrogen
deposition, erosion) may lead to increased tolerance of these sites by
native and nonnative species, and lead to competition and shading,
thereby preventing natural growth and reproduction of A. franciscana
(Weiss 1999, pp. 1479-1485). Therefore, based on the information above,
we identify areas with mostly full to full sun, that are open, barren,
or sparse with minimal overstory or understory of vegetation to be an
essential physical or biological feature for this species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Summer Fog
Summer fog is a climatic condition that characterizes many areas
within the San Francisco Bay area, including the Presidio (Schlocker
1974, p. 6; Null 1995, p. 2). Summer fog increases humidity, moderates
drought pressure, and provides for milder summer and winter temperature
ranges than occur in interior coastal areas. Summer fog is a major
influence on the survival and diversity of manzanitas and other
vegetation within this zone (Patton 1956, pp. 113-200; McCarten 1986,
p. 4; McCarten 1993, p. 2; Service 2003, p. 66; Chasse et al. 2009, p.
9; Johnstone and Dawson 2010, p. 5). The cooler temperatures and
additional moisture availability during the summer may lessen the harsh
site conditions of the thin-soiled, nutrient-poor, rock outcrops (Raven
and Axlerod 1978, pp. 1, 25-26; Kruckeberg 1984, pp. 11-17). As a
result, we have identified areas influenced by coastal summer fog to be
an essential physical or biological feature for Arctostaphylos
franciscana.
Fungal Mycorrhizae Relationship
Arctostaphylos species form strong symbiotic relationships with
over 100 different fungal mycorrhizae species (McCarten 1986, p. 4;
Bruns et al. 2005, p. 33; Chase et al. 2009, p. 12). These fungi are
located in the soil and form an ectomycorrhizal sheath around the host
plant's roots (Salisbury and Ross 1985, pp. 116-118). The presence of
these fungal mycorrhizae is essential for the plant because they assist
in water and nutrient absorption (Bruns et al. 2002, pp. 352-353). The
fungi form a network of connections within the soil to other plants (of
the same or other species) and may play a major role in ecosystem
sustainability, thereby leading to increased plant germination and
vigor (Horton et al. 1999, p. 94; Simard and Durall 2004, pp. 1140-
1141). As a result, we identify areas with a healthy fungal mycorrhizae
component to be an essential physical or biological feature for A.
franciscana.
Pollinators
We are currently unaware of any studies that have specifically
documented which insect or animal species pollinate Arctostaphylos
franciscana; however, the species is most likely visited by numerous
bees, butterflies, and even hummingbirds. In a study on A. patula in
northern California, 3 solitary bees (Halictidae and Andrenidae), 2
long-tongued bees (Anthophoridae), 1 honey bee (Apidae), and 4 bumble
bees (Apidae) were observed pollinating that species (Valenti et al.
1997, p. 4), which is in addition to the 27 other hymenopteran species
previously documented by species experts (Krombein et al. 1979). These
pollinators are important as they are able to travel long distances and
cross fragmented landscapes to pollinate A. franciscana. Conserving
habitat where these pollinators nest and forage will sustain an active
pollinator community and facilitate mixing of genes within and among
plant populations, without which inbreeding and reduced fitness may
occur (Widen and Widen 1990, p. 191).
Native bees typically are more efficient pollinators than
introduced European honeybees (Apis mellifera) (Javorek et al. 2002, p.
345). Therefore, plant populations visited by a higher proportion of
native pollinator species are likely to maintain higher reproductive
output and persist for more generations than populations served by
fewer native pollinators or with pollination limitations of any kind
(Javorek et al. 2002, p. 350).
Pollinators also require space for individual and population
growth, so adequate habitat should be available for pollinators in
addition to the habitat necessary for A. franciscana plants.
In this proposed critical habitat rule, we acknowledge that healthy
pollinator populations provide conservation value to A. franciscana.
However, we do not currently include areas for pollinators and their
habitats within this designation, because: (1) Meaningful data on
specific pollinators and their habitat needs are lacking; and (2) we
were not able to quantify the amount of habitat needed for pollinators,
given the lack of information on the specific pollinators of A.
franciscana. We are seeking input from the public and peer reviewers on
the specific information on pollinators for input into our final
critical habitat designation.
Habitats Representative of the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological
Distribution of the Species
The type locality for Arctostaphylos franciscana is the former
Laurel Hill Cemetery (Eastwood 1905, pp. 201-202), an area south of the
Presidio between California Street and Geary Boulevard. Voucher
specimens for A. franciscana also exist from exposed slopes of Mount
Davidson (Roof 1976, pp. 21-24), and reliable observations are recorded
from the former Masonic Cemetery (bounded by Turk Street, Masonic
Avenue, Park Avenue, and Fulton Street near Lone Mountain) (Roof 1976,
pp. 21-24). Behr (1892, pp. 2-6) observed a possible fourth historic
occurrence near the former Protestant Orphan Asylum near Laguna and
Haight Streets. All these sites have been lost due to development,
except for the Mount Davidson location, which has mostly been altered
and converted to nonnative habitat. The ``rediscovery site'' at Doyle
Drive near the Golden Gate Bridge has also been lost due to freeway
construction (Gluesenkamp et al. 2010, pp. 9-10; Park Presidio 2012,
pp. 1-2). The lone ``wild'' A. franciscana shrub has been transplanted
to a site within the Presidio (Gluesenkamp et al. 2010, pp. 10-15).
Development and habitat alteration from human activities and nonnative
plant species have greatly altered the majority of remaining habitat
for the species, although some appropriate habitat for the species
still remains within the San Francisco peninsula. As a result, we have
identified the species' general range to include only the area within
the San Francisco peninsula from the Presidio of San Francisco south to
[[Page 54527]]
Mount Davison (see Figure 1, above). Although additional sites outside
the peninsula, but within the Bay Area, contain appropriate habitat
characteristics, these areas are outside the known historic range of
the species, and we are not considering these areas for critical
habitat at this time.
Primary Constituent Elements for Arctostaphylos franciscana
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of Arctostaphylos franciscana in areas occupied at the
time of listing (i.e., areas that are currently occupied), focusing on
the features' primary constituent elements. We consider primary
constituent elements (PCEs) to be the elements of physical and
biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes
and that are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to self-sustaining Arctostaphylos franciscana
populations are:
(1) Areas on or near bedrock outcrops often associated with ridges
of serpentine or greenstone, mixed Franciscan rocks, or soils derived
from these parent materials.
(2) Areas having soils originating from parent materials identified
above in PCE 1 that are thin, have limited nutrient content or
availability, or have large concentrations of heavy metals.
(3) Areas within a vegetation community consisting of a mosaic of
coastal scrub, serpentine maritime chaparral, or serpentine grassland
characterized as having a vegetation structure that is open, barren, or
sparse with minimal overstory or understory of trees, shrubs, or plants
that contain and exhibit a healthy fungal mycorrhizae component.
(4) Areas that are influenced by summer fog, which limits daily and
seasonal temperature ranges, provides moisture to limit drought stress,
and increases humidity.
With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to
identify the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, through the identification of the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of the features' primary
constituent elements sufficient to support the life-history processes
of the species.
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 (in the case of Arctostaphylos franciscana, areas that are
currently occupied) contain features which are essential to the
conservation of the species and which may require special management
considerations or protection. Special management considerations or
protection may be necessary to eliminate or reduce the magnitude of
threats that affect these species. Threats identified in the final
listing rule for the species include: (1) Loss, degradation, or
alteration of habitat due to development or other human activities; (2)
competition from nonnative plants; (3) small population size and
curtailment of the species' range, which restrict the species' current
and future ability to naturally reproduce and expand its range; and (4)
soil compaction, potential overutilization, disease introduction, or
vandalism from visitor use at the transplantation site.
Loss and degradation of habitat from development are cited in the
final listing rule as a primary cause for the decline of Arctostaphylos
franciscana. The single ``wild'' plant is located in the Presidio of
San Francisco on one of the limited open rocky sites remaining. These
areas are frequently near or bounded by urbanized areas, roadways,
trails, or other developed sites, and continue to have impacts from
increasing human populations and development pressure. Urban
development removes the plant community's components and associated
rocky substrate and mycorrhizal relationship within the soil, which
eliminates or fragments the remaining habitat of A. franciscana.
Conservation and management of A. franciscana habitat is needed to
address the threat of development. Adjacent development may introduce
nonnative, invasive plant species that alter the vegetation composition
or the open physical structure, to such an extent that the area would
not support or would greatly affect A. franciscana or the surrounding
plant community that it inhabits. Additionally, nitrogen or other
nutrient deposition from human activities may assist excessive plant
growth from other species that would compete with A. franciscana for
space and resources that would otherwise be available to the species.
Management activities including (but not limited to) removal and
control of nonnative, or excessive native, plants are needed to reduce
this threat. Unauthorized recreational activities or visitor use may
impact the vegetation composition, increase soil compaction, or
introduce soil-borne disease to A. franciscana habitat to such an
extent that the area will no longer support the species.
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. We review
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the
species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time
of listing, if listing occurs before the designation of critical
habitat--are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We
are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area currently occupied by the species (see final listing
determination published elsewhere in today's Federal Register). We also
are proposing to designate specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing (in this case, the
geographic area currently occupied by the species), which were
historically occupied but are presently unoccupied, because such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
This section provides details of the criteria and process we used
to delineate the proposed critical habitat for Arctostaphylos
franciscana. The areas being proposed for critical habitat within this
rule are based largely on habitat characteristics identified from the
``rediscovery site'' near Doyle Drive, the currently occupied
transplantation site, and historically occupied areas identified in
voucher specimens and historical records. We also used the Recovery
Plan for Coastal Plants of the Northern San Francisco Peninsula
(Service 2003, pp. 1-322); the Conservation Plan for Arctostaphylos
franciscana (the Franciscan Manzanita) (Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 1-44);
the Raven's Manzanita Recovery Plan (Service 1984, pp. 1-73), which
provide habitat characteristics of the historically co-occurring
species; and information received from peer reviewers and the public on
our proposed listing for A. franciscana (76 FR 55623; September 8,
2011). Due to the rapid development of the San Francisco peninsula and
limited historical information on plant location and distribution, it
is difficult to determine the exact range of the species. Given the
amount of remaining habitat available with the appropriate
[[Page 54528]]
characteristics, we looked at all areas within San Francisco that met
our criteria as potential habitat. Based on this information, we are
proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area currently occupied by A. franciscana (which is the
same as the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing) and unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation
of the species (see the Distribution and Habitat section above for more
information on the range of the species).
Although a recovery plan for Arctostaphylos franciscana has not
been developed, the species is discussed along with the endangered A.
montana ssp. ravenii in the Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants of the
Northern San Francisco Peninsula (Service 2003). The recovery plan
calls for a three part strategy in conserving A. montana ssp. ravenii,
as well as additional recommendations for establishment in areas
outside the Presidio at historic and other rock outcrop sites in
conjunction with A. franciscana (Service 2003, pp. 75-77). The strategy
includes: (1) Protecting the existing plant and surrounding habitat;
(2) increasing the number of independent populations throughout
suitable habitat within the Presidio; and (3) restoring the natural
ecological interactions of the species with its habitat, including
allowing gene flow with A. franciscana. As mentioned above, the
recovery plan also identifies establishing additional areas within rock
outcrops throughout suitable habitat along with populations of A.
franciscana. We believe that a recovery strategy for A. franciscana
would have many aspects similar to the recovery plan for A. montana
ssp. ravenii based on the two species being limited to one ``wild''
individual, their co-occurrence in similar habitat within the Presidio
and elsewhere at historical locations, and the seeming dependence of A.
montana ssp. ravenii on A. franciscana to produce viable seed and
maintain gene flow with A. franciscana in the absence of more than the
single individual or clones of A. montana ssp. ravenii. In order to
accomplish portions of this strategy, we have identified areas we
believe are essential to the conservation of A. franciscana through the
following criteria:
(1) Determine, in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, the physical or biological habitat
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require special management considerations or protection, as explained
in the previous section.
(2) Identify multiple independent sites for A. franciscana. These
sites should be throughout the historic range of the species (generally
on the San Francisco peninsula north of Mount Davidson) within or near
rock outcrops of various origins but especially on ridges or slopes
within serpentine or greenstone formations along the Franciscan fault
zone between Potrero Hills and the Golden Gate (see Figure 2, above).
(3) In accordance with section 2(b) of the Act, select areas which
would conserve the ecosystem upon which the species depends. This
includes areas that contain the natural ecological interactions of the
species with its habitat or areas with additional management that may
be enhanced. The conservation of A. franciscana is dependent on several
factors including, but not limited to, selection of areas of sufficient
size and configuration to sustain natural ecosystem components,
functions, and processes (such as full sun exposure, summer fog,
natural fire and hydrologic regimes, intact mycorrhizal or edaphic
interactions); protection of existing substrate continuity and
structure; connectivity among groups of plants of this species within
geographic proximity to facilitate gene flow among the sites through
pollinator activity and seed dispersal; and sufficient adjacent
suitable habitat for vegetative reproduction and population expansion.
(4) In selecting areas to propose as critical habitat, consider
factors such as size, connectivity to other habitats, and rangewide
recovery considerations. We rely upon principles of conservation
biology, including: (a) Resistance and resiliency, to ensure sufficient
habitat is protected throughout the range of the species to support
population viability (e.g., demographic parameters); (b) redundancy, to
ensure multiple viable populations are conserved throughout the
species' range; and (c) representation, to ensure the representative
genetic and life history of A. franciscana are conserved.
Methods
In order to identify the physical or biological features on the
ground based on our criteria outlined above, we used the following
methods to delineate the proposed critical habitat:
(1) We compiled and reviewed all available information on
Arctostaphylos franciscana habitat and distribution from historic
voucher specimens, literature, and reports; (2) we also compiled and
reviewed all available information on A. montana ssp. ravenii habitat
and distribution from similar sources, as these two species have
similar habitat requirements and often occurred together historically;
(3) we reviewed available information on rock outcrops, bedrock, and
areas identified as serpentine, greenstone, or of Franciscan formation
within the San Francisco peninsula and surrounding areas south of Mount
Davidson and north into Marin County to determine the extent of these
features on the landscape; (4) we compiled species occurrence
information including historic record locations, the current occupied
site within the Presidio, and information on the ``rediscovery site''
near Doyle Drive; (5) we then compiled all this information into a GIS
database using ESRI ArcMap 10.0; and (6) we screen digitized and mapped
the specific areas on which are found those physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species or other areas
determined to be essential for the conservation of the species.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical and biological features for Arctostaphylos franciscana. 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, especially within such an urbanized area as San
Francisco. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded
by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as
critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as
proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical and biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we
have determined are currently occupied (which, in this case, is the
same as occupied at the time of listing) and contain sufficient
elements of physical and biological features to support life-history
processes essential to the conservation of the species, and lands
outside of the geographic area currently occupied that we have
determined are essential for the conservation of Arctostaphylos
franciscana.
The units of critical habitat are proposed for designation based on
sufficient elements of physical or
[[Page 54529]]
biological features being present to support Arctostaphylos
franciscana's life-history processes. Some units contain all of the
identified elements of physical or biological features and support
multiple life-history processes. Some units contain only some elements
of the physical or biological features necessary to support the use of
that habitat by A. franciscana.
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 preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0067, on our Internet
site at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento, and at the Fish and Wildlife
office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT above).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 11 units as critical habitat for Arctostaphylos
franciscana. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for A. franciscana. The areas we propose as critical
habitat are identified below. Table 1 shows the occupancy status of
each unit.
Table 1--Occupancy of Arctostaphylos franciscana by Proposed Critical
Habitat Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at time Currently
Unit of listing? occupied?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fort Point................... No................ No.
2. Fort Point Rock.............. No................ No.
3. World War II Memorial........ No................ No.
4. Immigrant Point.............. No................ No.
5. Inspiration Point............ Yes............... Yes.
6. Corona Heights............... No................ No.
7. Twin Peaks................... No................ No.
8. Mount Davidson............... No................ No.
9. Diamond Heights.............. No................ No.
10. Bernal Heights.............. No................ No.
11. Bayview Park................ No................ No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approximate area of each proposed critical habitat unit is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Arctostaphylos franciscana
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership by Acres
Critical habitat unit type (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fort Point..................... Federal............. 12 (5)
State............... 0
Local............... 0
Private............. 0
2. Fort Point Rock................ Federal............. 36 (15)
State............... 0
Local............... 0
Private............. 0
3A. World War II Memorial......... Federal............. 1 (0.6)
State............... 0
Local............... 0
Private............. 0
3B. World War II Memorial......... Federal............. 2 (0.7)
State............... 0
Local............... 0
Private............. 0
4A. Immigrant Point............... Federal............. 0.7 (0.3)
State............... 0
Local............... 0
Private............. 0
4B. Immigrant Point............... Federal............. 6 (3)
State............... 0
Local............... 0
Private............. 0
5A. Inspiration Point............. Federal............. 21 (9)
State............... 0
Local............... 0
Private............. 0
5B. Inspiration Point............. Federal............. 3 (1)
State............... 0
Local............... 0
Private............. 0
6. Corona Heights................. Federal............. 0
State............... 0
Local............... 10 (4)
Private............. 0
7. Twin Peaks..................... Federal............. 0
State............... 0
Local............... 62 (25)
[[Page 54530]]
Private............. 9 (4)
8. Mount Davidson................. Federal............. 0
State............... 0
Local............... 11 (4)
Private............. 1 (0.5)
9. Diamond Heights................ Federal............. 0
State............... 0
Local............... 34 (14)
Private............. 0.3 (0.1)
10. Bernal Heights................ Federal............. 0
State............... 0
Local............... 24 (10)
Private............. 0.3 (0.1)
11. Bayview Park.................. Federal............. 0
State............... 0
Local............... 56 (23)
Private............. 29 (12)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal............. 83 (34)
State............... 0
Local............... 196 (79)
Private............. 40 (16)
Total............... 318 (129)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of the proposed critical habitat
units for Arctostaphylos franciscana and the reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat, below. Acreage or hectare totals may
not sum due to rounding.
Unit 1: Fort Point
Unit 1 consists of 12 acres (ac) (5 hectares (ha)) and is located
within the Presidio east of the Golden Gate Bridge and north of Doyle
Drive (Dr.) along Long Avenue (Ave.) and Marine Dr. This unit is
currently unoccupied. The unit is within an area that experiences
summer fog, and contains serpentine and Franciscan Complex bedrock
outcrops, soils derived from these formations, and native maritime
chaparral habitat. The unit represents one of the northern-most areas
identified for the species. We have determined that the area is
essential for the conservation of the species, because it provides one
of multiple independent sites for A. franciscana and contains some of
the last remaining appropriate habitat within the area.
Unit 2: Fort Point Rock
Unit 2 consists of 36 ac (15 ha) and is located within the Presidio
west of the Golden Gate Bridge and west of Lincoln Boulevard (Blvd.).
The unit extends from the Toll Plaza south to Kobbe Ave. This unit is
currently unoccupied. The unit is within an area that experiences
summer fog, and contains serpentine and Franciscan Complex bedrock
outcrops, soils derived from these formations, and native maritime
chaparral habitat along the coastal bluffs. The unit represents one of
the northern-most areas identified for the species. We have determined
that the area is essential for the conservation of the species, because
it provides one of multiple independent sites for A. franciscana and
contains some of the last remaining appropriate habitat within the
area.
Unit 3: World War II Memorial
Unit 3 consists of a total of 3 ac (1 ha). The unit is located
within the Presidio at the intersection of Lincoln Blvd. and Kobbe Ave.
The unit is comprised of two subunits. Subunit 3A (1 ac (0.6 ha)) is
located west of Lincoln Blvd., and subunit 3B (2 ac (0.7 ha)) is
located east of Lincoln Blvd. This unit is currently unoccupied. The
unit is along the coastal bluffs within an area that experiences summer
fog, and contains serpentine and Franciscan Complex bedrock outcrops,
soils derived from these formations, and native maritime chaparral
habitat. We have determined that the area is essential for the
conservation of the species, because it provides for one of multiple
independent sites for A. franciscana and contains some of the last
remaining appropriate habitat within the area.
Unit 4: Immigrant Point
Unit 4 consists of a total of approximately 7 ac (3 ha). The unit
is located within the Presidio along Washington Blvd. east of Lincoln
Blvd. and north of Compton Road. The unit is comprised of two subunits.
Subunit 4A (0.7 ac (0.3 ha)) is located west of Washington Boulevard,
and subunit 4B (6 ac (3 ha)) is located east of Washington Blvd. This
unit is currently unoccupied. The unit is located along the coastal
bluffs within an area that experiences summer fog, and contains
serpentine and Franciscan Complex bedrock outcrops, soils derived from
these formations, and native maritime chaparral habitat. We have
determined that the area is essential for the conservation of the
species, because it provides for one of multiple independent sites for
A. franciscana and contains some of the last remaining appropriate
habitat within the area.
Unit 5: Inspiration Point
Unit 5 consists of a total of approximately 24 ac (10 ha). The unit
is within the Presidio and is located north of Pacific Ave. and east of
Arguello Blvd. The unit is comprised of two subunits, which are
adjacent to each other. Subunit 5A (21 ac (9 ha)) and subunit 5B (3 ac
(1 ha)) are located east of Arguello Blvd., but the two areas are
separated by an access road. This unit is currently occupied. The unit
contains the physical or biological features
[[Page 54531]]
essential to the conservation of the species. The unit is within an
area that experiences summer fog (PCE 4), and is located on sloping
terrain containing serpentine and Franciscan Complex bedrock outcrops
(PCE 1), soils derived from these formations (PCE 2), and native
maritime chaparral habitat (PCE 3). We have determined that the area is
essential to the conservation of the species, because it contains the
last remaining wild A. franciscana individual and contains some of the
last remaining appropriate habitat within the area.
The physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of the species in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from habitat loss,
degradation, or alteration due to development or other human
activities; competition from nonnative plants; small population size
and curtailment of the species' range; and various other human induced
factors such as soil compaction, potential overutilization, disease, or
vandalism from visitor use. Please see the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section of this proposed rule for a
discussion of the threats to A. franciscana habitat and potential
management considerations.
Unit 6: Corona Heights
Unit 6 consists of 10 ac (4 ha) and is located northwest of Castro
and 17th Streets adjacent to Roosevelt and Museum Way. This unit is
currently unoccupied. The unit is within an area that experiences
summer fog, and is located on sloping terrain that contains Franciscan
Complex (greenstone) bedrock outcrops of chert or volcanic materials,
soils derived from these formations, and open grassland habitat. The
unit represents one of several areas identified for the species within
the Mount Davidson area. The units in this area would assist in
establishing populations of A. franciscana outside the Presidio. As a
result, we have determined that the area is essential for the
conservation of the species, because it provides for one of multiple
independent sites for A. franciscana and contains some of the last
remaining appropriate habitat within the area.
Unit 7: Twin Peaks
Unit 7 consists of approximately 71 ac (29 ha) along the hilltop of
Twin Peaks along Twin Peaks Blvd. west of Market Street. This unit is
currently unoccupied. The unit is within an area that experiences
summer fog; is located on sloping terrain; and contains Franciscan
Complex (greenstone) bedrock outcrops of chert or volcanic materials,
soils derived from these formations, and open grassland habitat. The
unit represents one of several areas identified for the species within
the Mount Davidson area. The units in this area would assist in
establishing populations of A. franciscana outside the Presidio. As a
result, we have determined that the area is essential for the
conservation of the species, because it provides for one of multiple
independent sites for A. franciscana and contains some of the last
remaining appropriate habitat within the area.
Unit 8: Mount Davidson
Unit 8 consists of approximately 12 ac (5 ha) and is located on the
eastern slope of Mount Davidson near Myra Way and Molimo Drive. This
unit is currently unoccupied. The unit is within an area that
experiences summer fog, and is located on sloping terrain containing
Franciscan Complex (greenstone) bedrock outcrops of chert and
sedimentary materials, soils derived from these formations, and open
grassland habitat. Mount Davidson is the only known site still
remaining that was previously occupied by the species (see Figure 1,
above). The reestablishment of populations of A. franciscana at this
and surrounding units would assist in establishing multiple populations
of A. franciscana outside the Presidio. As a result, we have determined
that the area is essential for the conservation of the species, because
it provides for one of multiple independent sites for A. franciscana
and contains the last remaining historic for the species.
Unit 9: Diamond Heights
Unit 9 consists of approximately 34 ac (14 ha) and is located near
Diamond Heights Blvd. south of Turquoise Way. This unit is currently
unoccupied. The unit is within an area that experiences summer fog; is
located on sloping terrain; and contains Franciscan Complex
(greenstone) bedrock outcrops of chert, volcanic, and sedimentary
materials, soils derived from these formations, and open grassland
habitat. The unit represents one of several areas identified for the
species within the Mount Davidson area. Mount Davidson is the only
known site still remaining that was previously occupied by the species.
The units in this area would assist in establishing populations of A.
franciscana outside the Presidio. As a result, we have determined that
the area is essential for the conservation of the species, because it
provides for one of multiple independent sites for A. franciscana and
contains some of the last remaining appropriate habitat within the
area.
Unit 10: Bernal Heights
Unit 10 consists of approximately 24 ac (10 ha), is located north
of Cortland Avenue and west of U.S. Highway 101, and is surrounded by
Bernal Heights Blvd. This unit is currently unoccupied. The unit is
within an area that experiences summer fog; is located on sloping
terrain; and contains Franciscan Complex (greenstone) and Franciscan
bedrock outcrops of chert, volcanic, and sedimentary materials, soils
derived from these formations, and open grassland habitat. This unit
would assist in establishing an additional population of A. franciscana
outside the Presidio and Mount Davidson areas. As a result, we have
determined that the area is essential for the conservation of the
species, because it provides for one of multiple independent sites for
A. franciscana and contains some of the last remaining appropriate
habitat for the species within the area.
Unit 11: Bayview Park
Unit 11 consists of approximately 85 ac (35 ha) and is located at
Bayview Park west of Candlestick Park and east of U.S. Highway 101.
This unit is currently unoccupied. This unit is considered outside the
range of the species but still within the same Franciscan fault zone as
historic populations and as proposed critical habitat for the species.
The unit is within an area that experiences summer fog; is located on
sloping terrain; and contains Franciscan Complex (greenstone) bedrock
outcrops of chert, volcanic, and sedimentary materials, soils derived
from these formations, and open grassland habitat. The unit represents
one site identified for the species outside the Presidio and Mount
Davidson area. Due to the rapid development of the San Francisco
peninsula and limited historical information on plant location and
distribution, it is difficult to determine the exact range of the
species. Given the amount of remaining habitat available with the
appropriate characteristics, we looked at all areas within San
Francisco that met our criteria as potential habitat. Including this
unit would assist in establishing an additional population of A.
franciscana outside the Presidio and Mount Davidson areas. As a result,
we have determined that the area is essential for the conservation of
the species, because it provides for one of multiple independent sites
for A. franciscana and contains some of the last remaining appropriate
habitat for the species within the area. We are
[[Page 54532]]
seeking public input on whether it would be appropriate to designate
this area as critical habitat. Please see the Public Comments section
above for additional information.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, 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 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, 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 may sometimes 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 and
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for Arctostaphylos franciscana.
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. Generally, the conservation role of the A. franciscana
proposed critical habitat units is to support multiple viable
populations in appropriate habitat areas within the historic range 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 Arctostaphylos franciscana. These activities include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that result in ground disturbance. Such activities
could include (but are not limited to) residential or commercial
development, dumping, OHV activity, pipeline construction, new road
construction or widening, and existing road maintenance. These
activities potentially impact the habitat and PCEs of A. franciscana by
damaging, disturbing, and altering soil composition through direct
impacts, increased erosion, and increased nutrient content.
Additionally, changes in soil composition may lead to changes in the
vegetation composition, thereby changing the overall habitat type.
(2) Actions that result in alteration of the hydrological regimes
typically associated with A. franciscana habitat. Such activities could
include residential or commercial development, which may increase
summer watering. These activities could alter natural plant populations
adapted to summer drought, disrupt mycorrhizal interactions, increase
disease, and promote establishment of nonnative vegetation.
[[Page 54533]]
(3) Actions that increase nutrient deposition to the point at which
nutrient-loving plants not adapted to serpentine or rocky outcrops
become established and compete with A. franciscana and adjacent
vegetation communities. Such activities could include (but are not
limited to) use of chemical fertilizers within the areas, increased
nitrogen deposition from atmospheric sources (vehicles, industry), and
unauthorized dumping.
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 geographic areas owned
or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use,
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands within the proposed
critical habitat designation; as a result no lands are exempted under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation,
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his
discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result
in the extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors.
During the development of the final listing rule and this proposed
critical habitat determination, we have identified certain sectors and
activities that may potentially be affected by a designation of
critical habitat for Arctostaphylos franciscana. These sectors include
commercial development and urbanization, along with the accompanying
infrastructure associated with such projects such as road, storm water
drainage, bridge, and culvert construction and maintenance. We also
identified recreational use as a potential sector that may experience
economic impacts from the designation. We recognize that not all of
these sectors may qualify as small business entities. However, while
recognizing that these sectors and activities may be affected by this
designation, we are collecting information and initiating our analysis
to determine which of these sectors may potentially be impacted and to
what extent the economic impacts are related to A. franciscana being
listed as an endangered species under the Act. As such, we are
requesting any specific economic information related to small business
entities that may be affected by this designation and how the
designation may impact small businesses.
We will announce the availability of that draft economic analysis
as soon as it is completed. At that time, copies of the draft economic
analysis will be available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). During
the development of a final designation, we will consider economic
impacts, public comments, and other new information, and areas may be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical
habitat for Arctostaphylos franciscana are not owned or managed by the
Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on
national security. Consequently, the Secretary does not intend to
exercise his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation
based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any habitat conservation plans (HCPs)
[[Page 54534]]
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.
We are not considering any exclusions at this time from the
proposed designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on
partnerships, management, or protection afforded by cooperative
management efforts. Some areas within the proposed designation are
included in management plans or agreements in which the Service is not
a signatory, such as with the National Park Service, the Presidio
Trust, or local government entities such as the City or County of San
Francisco. In this proposed rule, we are seeking input from the public
as to whether or not the Secretary should exercise his discretion to
exclude such areas under management plans or agreements that benefit
Arctostaphylos franciscana or its habitat from the final critical
habitat designation (see the Public Comments section of this proposed
rule for instructions on how to submit comments). Should we receive
information during public comment that leads us to believe that such
exclusions based on partnerships, management, or protection afforded by
cooperative management efforts would outweigh the benefits of
designating these areas from critical habitat, then these areas may be
excluded from the final designation.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers
to comment during this public comment period (see DATES) on proposed
designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times,
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive 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 E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 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. E.O. 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
(SBREFA) of 1996 (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 (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.
At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding.
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination.
Potential land use sectors and small businesses potentially
affected by the designation may include entities associated with
commercial development and urbanization, along with the accompanying
infrastructure associated with such projects such as road, storm water
drainage, bridge, and culvert construction and maintenance. We also
identified recreational use as a potential sector that may experience
economic impacts from the designation. However, while recognizing that
these sectors and activities may be affected by this designation, we
are collecting information and initiating our analysis to determine
which of these sectors may potentially be impacted and to what extent
the economic impacts are related to Arctostaphylos franciscana being
listed as an endangered species under the Act.
We have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion
of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on
adequate, current economic information and provide the necessary
opportunity for public comment.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. We do not expect that the proposed critical
[[Page 54535]]
habitat designation for Arctostaphylos franciscana would significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, as the areas identified
as proposed critical habitat are surrounded by highly urbanized areas
with their energy supplies, distribution, or infrastructure already in
place. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and
no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, 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 would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on
State or local governments. In addition, adjacent upland properties are
owned by private entities or State partners. Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis and revise this
assessment if appropriate.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), this rule is not anticipated to have significant takings
implications. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal actions. Critical habitat designation does not
affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. Due to current
public knowledge of the protections for the species and the prohibition
against take of the species both within and outside of the proposed
areas, we do not anticipate that property values would be affected by
the critical habitat designation. However, we have not yet completed
the economic analysis for this proposed rule. Once the economic
analysis is available, we will review and revise this preliminary
assessment as warranted, and prepare a Takings Implication Assessment.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed 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
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource
agencies in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas
currently occupied by Arctostaphylos franciscana imposes no additional
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
elements of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation
of the species are specifically identified. This information does not
alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However,
it may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than
having them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
elements of physical and biological
[[Page 54536]]
features essential to the conservation of Arctostaphylos franciscana
within the proposed designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes.
We have determined that there are no tribal lands that are
currently occupied (which, in this case, also means occupied at the
time of listing) by the Arctostaphylos franciscana that contain the
features essential to the conservation of the species, and no tribal
lands that are unoccupied by Arctostaphylos franciscana that are
essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not
proposing to designate any critical habitat for the Arctostaphylos
franciscana on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by revising the entry for ``Arctostaphylos
franciscana'' under FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Arctostaphylos franciscana....... Franciscan manzanita U.S.A. (CA)........ Ericaceae.......... E 809 17.96(a) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.96(a) by adding an entry for ``Arctostaphylos
franciscana (Franciscan manzanita)'' in alphabetical order under family
Ericaceae, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
* * * * *
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Ericaceae: Arctostaphylos franciscana (Franciscan manzanita)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for San Francisco County,
California, on the maps below.
[[Page 54537]]
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Arctostaphylos franciscana consist of the following four components:
(i) Areas on or near bedrock outcrops often associated with ridges
of serpentine or greenstone, mixed Franciscan rocks, or soils derived
from these parent materials.
(ii) Areas having soils originating from parent materials
identified above in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry that are thin, have
limited nutrient content or availability, or have large concentrations
of heavy metals.
(iii) Areas within a vegetation community consisting of a mosaic of
coastal scrub, serpentine maritime chaparral, or serpentine grassland
as characterized as having a vegetation structure that is open, barren,
or sparse with minimal overstory or understory of trees, shrubs, or
plants that contain and exhibit a healthy fungal mycorrhizae component.
(iv) Areas that are influenced by summer fog, which limits daily
and seasonal temperature ranges, provides moisture to limit drought
stress, and increases humidity.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on a base of the Natural Resource Conservation Service National
Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP 2011), and critical habitat was then
mapped using North American Datum (NAD) 83, Universal Transverse
Mercator Zone 10N coordinates. The maps in this entry, as modified by
any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based are available to the public at the field office
internet site (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento), http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0067, and at the
Service's Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. You may obtain field
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 6560-55-P
[[Page 54538]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.003
[[Page 54539]]
(6) Unit 1: Fort Point, San Francisco County, California. Map of
Unit 1 and Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.004
[[Page 54540]]
(7) Unit 2: Fort Point Rock, San Francisco County, California. Map
of Unit 2 is provided at paragraph (6) of this entry.
(8) Unit 3: World War II Memorial, San Francisco, California. Map
of Unit 3 and Unit 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.005
[[Page 54541]]
(9) Unit 4: Immigrant Point, San Francisco County, California. Map
of Unit 4 is provided at paragraph (8) of this entry.
(10) Unit 5: Inspiration Point, San Francisco, California. Map of
Unit 5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.006
[[Page 54542]]
(11) Unit 6: Corona Heights, San Francisco County, California. Map
of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.007
[[Page 54543]]
(12) Unit 7: Twin Peaks, San Francisco, California. Map of Unit 7
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.008
[[Page 54544]]
(13) Unit 8: Mount Davidson, San Francisco County, California. Map
of Unit 8 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.009
[[Page 54545]]
(14) Unit 9: Diamond Heights, San Francisco, California. Map of
Unit 9 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.010
[[Page 54546]]
(15) Unit 10: Bernal Heights, San Francisco County, California. Map
of Unit 10 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.011
[[Page 54547]]
(16) Unit 11: Bayview Park, San Francisco County, California. Map
of Unit 11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE12.012
[[Page 54548]]
* * * * *
Dated: August 27, 2012
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-21744 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C