[Federal Register: August 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 153)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48294-48298]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au10-12]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0049]
[MO-92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition to List Arctostaphylos franciscana as Endangered with
Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list Arctostaphylos franciscana
(Franciscan manzanita or San Francisco manzanita) as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (Act) and to designate
critical habitat. Based on our review, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing this species may be warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of
the species to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure
that the status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific
and commercial data and other information regarding this species. Based
on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition,
which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before October 12, 2010. Please note
that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is
11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time on this date.
After October 12, 2010, you must submit information directly to the
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below).
Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate
information that we receive after the above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In
the box that reads ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter the Docket number for
this finding, which is -[FWS-R8-ES-2010-0049]. Check the box that reads
``Open for Comment/Submission,'' and then click the Search button. You
should then see an icon that reads ``Submit a Comment.'' Please ensure
that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your
comment.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: [FWS-R8-ES-2010-0049]; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information we receive on http://
www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Leyse, Listing Coordinator,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825; by telephone 916-414-6600; or by facsimile 916-
414-6712. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we request information on
Arctostaphylos franciscana from governmental agencies, Native American
tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested
parties. We seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including;
(a) Requirements for reproduction, nutrition, and habitat;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which
are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) The potential effects of climate change on this species and its
habitat.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing
Arctostaphylos franciscana is warranted, we will propose critical
habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), under section 4
of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time
we propose to list the species. Therefore, within the geographical
range currently occupied by A. franciscana, we request data and
information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species'';
(2) Where these features are currently found; and
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and information on ``specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species'' that are
``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Please provide
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4
of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is a threatened or endangered species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://
[[Page 48295]]
www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--including any personal
identifying information--will be posted on the website. If you submit a
hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may
request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal
identifying information from public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://
www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that a petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we
are to make the finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition,
and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
information was presented, we are required to promptly conduct a
species status review, which we will subsequently summarize in our 12-
month finding.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the exposure of the species to the factor to evaluate whether
the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts
to the species. If there is exposure and the species responds
negatively, the factor may be a threat, and we then attempt to
determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if
it drives or contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such
that the species may warrant listing as threatened or endangered as
those terms are defined by the Act. The identification of factors that
could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall contain
evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative
threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet
the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
Petition History
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 endangered on an emergency
basis, and that critical habitat be designated under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR
424.14(a). In a January 26, 2010, letter to the petitioners, we
responded that we had reviewed the information presented in the
petition and determined that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the species as per section 4(b)(7) of the Act was
not warranted. We also indicated that we would make an initial finding
in Fiscal Year 2010 regarding whether the petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing may be warranted. This finding
addresses the petition.
Previous Federal Actions
Arctostaphylos franciscana was originally proposed for listing as
an endangered species under the Act in 1976 (41 FR 24524, June 16,
1976). It was included in the list of Category 1 candidates for listing
in 1980, as one of the taxa retaining a high priority for addition to
the list subject to confirmation of extant populations. At the time the
species was thought to be extinct in the wild although known to be
extant in cultivation (U45 FR 82480, December 15, 1980). It is included
as a ``species of concern'' in the Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants of
the Northern San Francisco Peninsula (USFWS 2003, p. 95). In late 2009,
62 years after the loss of the last known wild plants, one individual
A. franciscana plant was located in the wild on the Presidio of San
Francisco (the Presidio), a unit of the National Park Service's system,
on the San Francisco peninsula.
Upon discovery of the plant, several Federal and State agencies,
and private organizations established a conservation plan (referred to
herein as Chasse et al. 2009) and a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
(referred to herein as California Department of Transportation et al.
2009) to conserve the species in the wild. The Federal agencies
participating in these efforts were the National Park Service and the
Service. The State of California was represented by the California
Department of Transportation and the California Department of Fish and
Game. The Presidio Trust, a wholly-owned government corporation that
manages the Presidio (71 FR 10608, March 2, 2006; NPS 2006), also
participated.
Species Information
Arctostaphylos franciscana is a low, spreading to ascending
evergreen shrub in the heath family (Ericaceae) that may reach 2 or 3
feet in height when mature (USFWS 2003, p. 95; Chasse et al. 2009, p.
5). Its leaves are about 1.5 to 2 centimeters (cm) (0.59 to 0.79 inches
(in)) long, are isofacial (have the same type of surface on both
sides), and are oblanceolate (longer than they are wide and wider
towards the tip) (USFWS 2003, p. 57; Chasse et al. 2009, p. 39). Its
mahogany brown fruits are about 6 to 8 millimeters (mm) (0.24 to 0.32
in) wide, while its urn-shaped flowers measure about 5 to 7 mm (0.2 to
0.28 in) long (Wallace 1993, p. 552; USFWS 2003, p. 57). A closely
related species, A. montana ravenii (Raven's manzanita), looks similar
but has a more prostrate growth habit, more rounded leaves, smaller and
less reddish fruits, and smaller and more spherical flowers (USFWS
2003, pp. 55, 57). Another somewhat similar appearing species, though
not as closely related, is A. uva-ursi (bearberry), which can be
distinguished by its lack of isofacial leaves (Chasse et al. 2009, p.
39).
Arctostaphylos franciscana is endemic (native and restricted) to
the San Francisco peninsula, California, and historically occurred in
areas with serpentine soils and bedrock outcrops, typically growing in
mixed populations with A. montana ravenii (USFWS 2003, pp. 95, 96). At
one point the two plants, along with A. montana (Mount Tamalpais
manzanita), were considered to be subspecies of A. hookeri (Hooker's
manzanita). However, recent taxonomic revisions have established A.
montana and A. franciscana as separate species, and have assigned A.
montana ravenii as a subspecies of A. montana. These revisions have
been based primarily on genetic comparisons, including the fact that A.
franciscana is diploid (with 13 pairs of chromosomes) while A. montana
ravenii is tetraploid (with 26 chromosome pairs) (USFWS 2003, p. 95;
Parker et al. 2007, pp. 149, 150; Chasse et al. 2009, p. 6).
[[Page 48296]]
Prior to October, 2009, Arctostaphylos franciscana had not been
seen in the wild since 1947 (Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 3, 7). It was
originally known from three locations: the Masonic and Laurel Hill
Cemeteries in San Francisco's Richmond district, and Mount Davidson in
the south-central part of San Francisco (USFWS 2003, pp. 16, 62, 95;
Chasse et al. 2009, p. 4). Unconfirmed sightings were also noted at a
possible fourth location near Laguna and Haight Streets. The Masonic
and Laurel Hill Cemetery sites had been converted to urban development
by 1947 (Chasse et al. 2009, p. 7). The Mount Davidson and possibly the
Laguna and Haight Streets locations were presumably lost to
urbanization as well.
Prior to the loss of the wild plants, botanists collected cuttings
and rooted specimens of wild Arctostaphylos franciscana, representing
at least three genetically distinct individuals, and propagated them in
botanical gardens (USFWS 2003, p. 96; Chasse et al. 2009, p. 7). Modern
botanical collections of this plant include some of the original
specimens from Laurel Hill, as well as specimens propagated
vegetatively since the species was throught to have been extinct in the
wild (Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 6-8). The specimens (both those
originally from Laurel Hill and those propagated thereafter) have been
successfully planted on a wide variety of soils despite the fact that
historic sites in the wild are primarily underlain by serpentine
outcrops (USFWS 2003, pp. 6, 96; Chasse et al. 2009, p. 6). Serpentine
soil restricts the growth of many plants due to its high nickel and
magnesium concentrations, and thus tends to support unique plant
communities (Brooks 1987, pp. 19, 53; USFWS 2003, p. 16).
In October 2009, an ecologist identified a plant growing in a
concrete-bound median strip along Doyle Drive in the Presidio as
Arctostaphylos franciscana (Associated Press 2009, p. 1; Chasse et al.
2009 pp. 3, 4). The plant's location was directly in the footprint of a
roadway improvement project designed to upgrade the seismic and
structural integrity of the south access to the Golden Gate Bridge
(California Department of Transportation et al. 2009, p. 1; Chasse et
al. 2009, p. 10). The identification of the plant as A. franciscana has
since been confirmed with 95 percent confidence based on morphological
characteristics (Parker et al. 2007, p. 1; Chasse et al. 2009 pp. 3, 4;
Vasey and Parker 2010, pp. 1, 5). Additional tests of ploidy level
indicate that the plant is diploid, consistent with A. franciscana
(Vasey and Parker 2010, p. 6). Preliminary results from molecular
genetic data also increase the confidence that the plant belongs to A.
franciscana, although genetic analysis shows evidence that the plant is
a descendant of a distant hybridization event, a situation that is
thought to be quite common in the genus (Vasey and Parker 2010, pp. 1,
7). Based on the best available scientific information we consider the
species to be A. franciscana.
Several agencies, including the Service, established an MOA and
conservation plan for the species (see Previous Federal Actions section
above). The conservation partners concluded it was not feasible to
leave the plant undisturbed at its original site, due to impacts on
public safety and to cultural resources related to a potential
curtailment or redesign of the roadway improvement project (Chasse et
al. 2009, pp. 9, 10).
The conservation plan recommended that the plant be moved to a new
site within the Presidio. The plan included measures to take cuttings
from the plant, both from non-rooted stems and from layering stems
(stems which have rooted at their leaf nodes), for vegetative
propagation (Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 10-16, 40-42). The plan also
called for collection and eventual propagation of seeds (including
seeds in the soil around the plant's original location), and for
genetic testing of resulting plants (since seeds fertilized in the wild
would likely produce hybrids). Additionally, because the roots of most
Arctostaphylos individuals establish a mutually beneficial association
with species of mycorrhyzal fungus living in the soil, the conservation
plan established means by which the soil for propagating cuttings and
seeds should be inoculated with spores from such fungi. The plan also
evaluated potential translocation sites, established procedures for
preparation of the new site and for the translocation itself, and
called for management and monitoring (both short- and long-term) of the
translocated plant and all newly propagated plants, with the goal of
eventually establishing self-sustaining populations of the species in
the wild (Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 23-27, 29-30).
The translocation of the Arctostaphylos franciscana plant to an
active native plant management area of the Presidio was accomplished,
apparently successfully and according to plan, on January 23, 2010
(Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 20, 23-25; Chronicle 2010, p. 1). Subsequent
monitoring reports indicate the plant continues to do well at its new
location (Yam 2010b, pp. 1, 3-14).
Evaluation of Information for this Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to Arctostaphylos franciscana, as presented in the
petition and other information available in our files, is substantial,
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range.
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that Arctostaphylos franciscana is within the
footprint of, and threatened by, the Doyle Drive project, a multiyear
road design project at the south access to the Golden Gate Bridge
(Plater 2009, p. 4).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Chasse et al. (2009, p. 3, 4) note that prior to discovery of
Arctostaphylos franciscana at Doyle Drive, the overstory shrubs and
trees that sheltered the plant had been removed in preparation for the
road construction project, thereby uncovering the plant and exposing it
to new environmental conditions. Planned road construction activities
at the site were scheduled to result in the imminent loss of the
plant's existing habitat, due to the plant's location directly in the
footprint of the planned northbound roadway and associated abutment
wall (Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 9, 10). Analysis of protection options
for the species found that project and location constraints precluded
protection of the plant in situ
[[Page 48297]]
(Chasse et al. 2009, p. 10). Therefore, shortly prior to the expected
destruction of the plant's habitat, the plant was translocated to a
preselected site on the Presidio (Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 9, 10; Yam
2010a, p. 1).
Additionally, the species has been reduced to the single remaining
wild plant because of loss of its original habitat at all other known
locations (Chasse et al. 2009, p. 7). Therefore, we have determined
that the petition and information in our files present substantial
information to indicate listing A. franciscana may be warranted due to
destruction or modification of the species habitat.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes.
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that during the last 60 years a robust nursery
trade has been established for the species, and that ``unregulated
propagation and trade of the species in the commercial market may have
a detrimental impact on reintroduction and conservation efforts by
undermining the genetic stock of the species.'' This assertion will be
addressed under Factor E below. The petition does not contain any
assertions regarding overutilization of the species for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Neither the petition nor information in our files presents
information indicating that overutilization of Arctostaphylos
franciscana for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition does not
present substantial information to indicate that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may
present a threat to A. franciscana. However, we intend to assess this
factor more thoroughly during the status review for the species.
C. Disease or Predation.
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that the single wild specimen of
Arctostaphylos franciscana may become more susceptible to various plant
diseases due to the stress of translocation. No information was
presented regarding a potential threat of predation on the species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Chasse et al. (2009, pp. 26-29) acknowledge that stress and disease
are threats to the plant, and established monitoring and management
protocols to help address them. The disease specifically mentioned in
the conservation plan is crown rot, which is a common disease of
manzanita and is discussed specifically in the context of outplanting
the A. fransiscana progeny (rooted seedlings and cuttings, and layered
plants) to wild locations (Chasse et al. 2009, p. 17), although an
implication is that transplantation itself may cause a manzanita to be
more susceptible to crown rot if it is planted so deeply that the crown
receives too much moisture. A fungal infection called twig blight is
also a potential concern, particularly during wet years (USFWS 2003, p.
69). The authors of the conservation plan did not specifically link the
stress of translocation to an increased susceptibility to disease.
However, we consider this to be a reasonable concern due to general
knowledge of plant physiology, which indicates that plants subject to
environmental stressors may become more susceptible to disease
organisms (Ohio State University Extension 1998, p. 1). Therefore, we
have determined the petition and information in our files presents
substantial information to indicate increased susceptibility to disease
due to translocation may be a threat to Arctostaphylos franciscana.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that there are currently no regulatory
mechanisms protecting Arctostaphylos franciscana.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
No existing regulatory mechanisms establish legal consequences for
harming the last known wild specimen of the species or its habitat, or
for harming any other such wild specimens that may be established or
found to exist. The species is not listed under the California
Endangered Species Act or the Native Plant Protection Act as rare,
threatened, or endangered (California Fish and Game Code, sections
1904, 2074.2 and 2075.5; California Department of Fish and Game 2010,
pp. 1-2). The conservation plan and MOA are not regulatory in nature
and are not legally enforceable by third parties (California Department
of Transportation 2009, p. 8; Chasse et al. 2009, p. 3). While the last
wild specimen is relatively safe in its new location on National Park
Service land from additional roadway improvement projects or urban
development, we are not aware of any regulatory mechanisms prohibiting
damage to the specimen at the site, or requiring that the welfare of
the specimen be taken into account should the land on which it is
located ever be transferred to a new owner. The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), requires all Federal agencies to
formally document, consider, and publicly disclose the environmental
impacts of major Federal actions and management decisions significantly
affecting the human environment. However, NEPA does not require
mitigation for impacts.
We have determined the petition and information in our files
presents substantial information to indicate the lack of regulatory
mechanisms that would control other threats such as intentional or
unintentional harm of the species may be a threat to Arctostaphylos
franciscana.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence.
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts under Factor A that the species is threatened
by the translocation of the single remaining wild plant from its
original location. The petition also asserts under Factor B that
propagation and trade of the species in the commercial market may
undermine the genetic stock of the species. Finally, the petition
asserts that potential threats to the species exist due to climate
change, unregulated off-leash dog walking, trampling or disturbance by
people attending special events in the Presidio, and stochastic
(chance) events.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The authors of the conservation plan acknowledge that cultivars of
Arctostaphylos franciscana likely descended from some of the last wild
A. franciscana plants known to exist in the 1940s, are available in
commercial trade, and are ``popular with home gardeners'' (Chasse et
al. 2009, p. 8). Since hybridization between diploid species of
manzanita (such as A. franciscana) is well recognized (Chasse et al.
2009, p. 5), there is a good chance that many of these commercially
available specimens result from hybridization. Accordingly, any
[[Page 48298]]
propagation or reintroduction programs for A. franciscana must account
for the threat of cross pollination from hybrids or other species, and
subsequent genetic contamination and swamping of the A. franciscana
gene pool (Allendorf et al. 2001, pp. 613, 618-621). The conservation
plan does take this into account by recommending that future
outplantings of nursery-raised plants avoid areas that could facilitate
cross pollination (Chasse et al. 2009, p. 31), but additional plans
will be needed to work out the details.
We agree that climate change may cause presently suitable habitat
to become unsuitable for endemic California plants in general, due to
projected changes in temperature and rainfall (Loarie et al. 2008, pp.
1-2). The ability of Arctostaphylos franciscana to track future climate
changes by establishing new plants in new habitat may be limited
because of its historic association with serpentine and greenstone
bedrock outcrops (USFWS 2003, pp. 95, 96). However, the current ability
of modeling to predict specific changes in climate at a scale that is
meaningful to the species is extremely limited. The petition did not
provide substantial information, nor did we have information in our
files, to indicate climate change is a threat to the species.
We agree that trampling by dogs or people could impact the species
if the wild specimen, or any herbarium-raised future specimens, were to
be placed in areas subject to regular foot or dog traffic, but neither
the petition nor any information in our files provides substantial
information to indicate that this has occurred or is likely to occur.
The petition asserts that special events can draw tens of thousands of
people to the Presidio, but does not provide substantial information to
indicate that any such events are likely to occur near the translocated
wild plant or near any herbarium-grown plants that may be translocated
to the Presidio in the future.
Despite the fact that the translocation has already been
accomplished (Chronicle 2010, p. 1; Yam 2010b, pp. 1, 4), we still do
not know whether the plant will persist over time and reproduce. Chasse
et al. (2009) acknowledge that translocation of the mature plant is
``very risky'' (Chasse et al. 2009, p. 15), and that the translocated
plant will require careful monitoring and management by an experienced
manzanita horticulturist to increase its chance of survival (Chasse et
al. 2009, p. 26). The translocated wild plant has been planted in an
active native plant management area and is protected from public access
by a cable and post fence (Chasse et al. 2009, p. 20). It was also
monitored every day for the first 10 days at its new location (Yam
2010b, pp. 4-13), and is scheduled to be monitored weekly until
November 1, 2010, and monthly thereafter for the following 2 years
(Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 27, 28).
We agree that stochastic events may constitute a threat to the
species. Because the known population of Arctostaphylos franciscana in
the wild is currently limited to a single plant, the population may be
considerably vulnerable to stochastic events, normal but randomly
occurring environmental perturbations and catastrophes such as
droughts, floods, and fires, from which large, wide ranging populations
can generally recover, but which extirpate small isolated populations
(Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 25-31). Therefore, we have determined that
the petition and information in our files do present substantial
information regarding threats from translocation of the species, from
cross pollination with other Arctostaphylos species, and from
stochastic events to indicate that listing may be warranted.
Finding
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing Arctostaphylos franciscana throughout its entire range may
be warranted. This finding is based on information provided under
factors A, C, D, and E.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that Arctostaphylos franciscana may be at risk
of extinction now or in the foreseeable future and, therefore, listing
under the Act may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to
determine whether listing A. franciscana under the Act is warranted.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
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).
Author
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 27, 2010
Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19429 Filed 8-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE S