Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Franciscan Manzanita, 54517-54548 [2012-21744]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[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: https://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 https://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 https://www.fws.gov/sacramento, 
https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov. You may request 
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such 
as your street address, phone number, or 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 https://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) (https://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/indexPublic.do), the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Web site 
(https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/), or from the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal (https://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 https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0067, on our Internet 
site at https://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 https://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 
https://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 (https://www.fws.gov/sacramento), https://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