Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Arctostaphylos franciscana, 48294-48298 [2010-19429]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 10, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48294-48298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19429]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: https://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 https://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 https://

[[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 https://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at https://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 
https://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