8408 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Interstate Pollution Transport 

Requirements for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS.

Statewide ............................... 6/6/14 2/19/16 [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the infrastructure element of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), or 

the good neighbor provision, for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03394 Filed 2–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0092; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AY77 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassifying 

Hesperocyparis abramsiana 

(=Cupressus abramsiana) as 

Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

threatened species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for Hesperocyparis 

abramsiana (=Cupressus abramsiana) 

(Santa Cruz cypress), a plant species 

found in Santa Cruz and San Mateo 

Counties in west-central California. We 

also finalize the correction to the 

scientific name of Santa Cruz cypress on 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. The effect of this regulation will 

be to change the listing status of Santa 

Cruz cypress from an endangered 

species to a threatened species on the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

March 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2013–0092 and at http://

www.fws.gov/ventura/. Comments and 

materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov. All of the 

comments, materials, and 

documentation that we considered in 

this rulemaking are available by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 

Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, 

California 93003; telephone 805–644– 

1766; facsimile 805–644–3958. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola 

Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; 

telephone 805–644–1766; facsimile 

805–644–3958. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Action 

On September 3, 2013, we proposed 

to reclassify the Santa Cruz cypress from 

an endangered species to a threatened 

species (78 FR 54221) on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants in 

part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). Please refer to the 

proposed reclassification rule for the 

Santa Cruz cypress (78 FR 54221; 

September 3, 2013) for a detailed 

description of the previous Federal 

actions concerning this species. This 

final rule constitutes our final action 

regarding the petition to reclassify the 

Santa Cruz cypress from endangered to 

threatened (Pacific Legal Foundation 

2011, pp. 1–11). 

Background 

For a detailed discussion of Santa 

Cruz cypress’s description, taxonomy, 

life history, habitat, soils, distribution, 

abundance, age and size distribution, 

and role of fire in regeneration, please 

see the Santa Cruz Cypress 

Hesperocyparis [Cupressus] abramsiana 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 1–57) 

(Species Report), which is available for 

review under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES– 

2013–0092 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Please refer to the 

proposed reclassification rule for the 

Santa Cruz cypress (78 FR 54221; 

September 3, 2013) (Service 2013b) for 

a summary of information about the 

species and the proposed change in 

taxonomy: In this final rule, we replace 

the entry for Cupressus abramsiana 

from 50 CFR 17.12(h) with an entry for 

Hesperocyparis abramsiana. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Factors Affecting the Species 

This section introduces and 

summarizes the biological status and 

factors affecting Santa Cruz cypress 

identified at each period of the species’ 

review history. We have described the 

level of threats using a scale of low, 

moderate, and high (as discussed in 

Appendix 1 of the Species Report). A 

low-level threat indicates a threat that 

has the potential to occur at any time, 

although the possibility is unlikely that 

this threat will affect the species across 

its range or interrupt the species’ 

persistence into the future. A moderatelevel threat indicates a threat that is 

currently affecting the long-term 

persistence of the species in a particular 

population or across its range, but does 

not pose an imminent threat to the 

persistence of the species. A high-level 

threat indicates a well-documented, 

imminent threat to a large number of 

individuals that has the potential to 

disrupt the long-term persistence of the 

species in a particular population or 

across its range. 

At the time of listing, the primary 

threats to Santa Cruz cypress were 

residential development, agricultural 

conversion, logging, oil and gas drilling, 

genetic introgression, and alteration of 

the natural frequency of fires that 

threatened to destroy portions of each 

population (52 FR 675; January 8, 1987). 

Other (secondary) threats in 1987 

included vandalism, disease, and 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms (52 

FR 675). Of the primary threats in 1987, 

residential development, agricultural 

conversion, and logging threatened 

individual Santa Cruz cypress trees and 

stands with imminent destruction. 

Other threats identified in the Recovery 

Plan for the Santa Cruz Cypress (Service 

1998) also included oil and gas 

development, reproductive isolation, 

introgression, and competition from 

nonnative species. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 8409 

On May 21, 2010, we notified the 

public in the Federal Register of the 

availability of the 5-year review for 

Santa Cruz cypress (75 FR 28636). The 

5-year review was completed on August 

17, 2009 (Service 2009, entire), and 

resulted in a recommendation to change 

the status of the species from an 

endangered species to a threatened 

species. At the time of the 2009 5-year 

review, we reported that the threats to 

Santa Cruz cypress from residential 

development, agricultural conversion, 

and logging had decreased since the 

time of listing. This decrease was 

achieved primarily through the 

acquisition of lands for conservation by 

the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation (CDPR) and the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW) and through other private land 

transfers. No evidence existed that oil 

and gas drilling was a threat to the 

species. The 5-year review also found 

information that the population size 

(number of individuals at each site) of 

the species was greater than known at 

the time of listing. The threats from 

alteration of fire frequencies, disease or 

predation, reproductive isolation, 

genetic introgression, vandalism, and 

competition with nonnative species 

remained at the same level as identified 

during the development of the Recovery 

Plan (Service 1998). 

The 5-year review identified low 

levels of regeneration (new recruitment 

of seedlings and young plants) and the 

effects of climate change as concerns for 

the long-term persistence of the Santa 

Cruz cypress (Service 2009, pp. 9–13). 

Climate change was classified as a 

moderate-level threat because 

projections indicated that the regional 

Santa Cruz climate will become warmer 

and drier, which would directly affect 

Santa Cruz cypress across its range over 

the next century (Service 2009, pp. 10– 

11). 

In accordance with section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act, our assessment of the current 

status of a species is based on whether 

a species is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so because of any of 

five factors: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Current or potential future threats to 

Santa Cruz cypress include alteration of 

the fire regime (Factors A and E), 

competition with nonnative species 

(Factors A and E), climate change 

(Factor A), genetic introgression (Factor 

E), and vandalism and unauthorized 

recreational activities (Factors A and E). 

The acquisition of lands for 

conservation by State agencies and 

designation of lands as sensitive areas 

by Santa Cruz County have resulted in 

protection of all or large portions of 

each population, but currently do not 

provide protections from the threats 

listed above (Factor D). Other potential 

impacts evaluated and found either to 

be of no concern, insignificant concern, 

or negligible at this time include 

residential development, agricultural 

conversion, logging, and oil and gas 

drilling (Factor A); overutilization 

(Factor B); disease or predation (Factor 

C); and reproductive isolation (Factor 

E). Please see Table 1, Table 4, and the 

‘‘Discussion of Threats to the Species’’ 

section of the Species Report for a 

thorough discussion of all potential and 

current threats (Service 2015, pp. 3, 22– 

40). 

We note, however, that, although the 

threats of residential development and 

agricultural conversion to Santa Cruz 

cypress have been ameliorated 

considerably compared to the time of 

listing (to the point that we consider 

them insignificant at this time), they 

may still occur at two of the populations 

(i.e., the Bracken Brae and Bonny Doon 

populations), although the likelihood is 

less than previously identified in the 

Recovery Plan. Specifically, while these 

lands are not in permanent conservation 

ownership, the likelihood of potential 

residential development is reduced at 

the Bracken Brae population because 

the land is owned by a conservationoriented landowner (Service 2015, p. 

45) and Santa Cruz County designation 

of these lands as a sensitive area places 

a restriction on certain kinds of 

development. We do not expect this 

county designation as a sensitive area to 

change in the future, even when the 

species is reclassified to threatened or if 

it is eventually delisted. Additionally, 

potential impacts of agricultural 

conversion is currently reduced (to an 

insignificant level) at the Bonny Doon 

population as a result of a large 

proportion of the population (i.e., 

approximately 70 percent) now 

occurring on lands designated as a 

reserve (Service 2015, pp. 15, 16, 45). 

The portion that is not part of the 

reserve (i.e., approximately 30 percent) 

is still subject to potential agricultural 

conversion, although potential loss of 

this area outside the reserve is relatively 

unlikely due to the county’s designation 

of these lands as a sensitive area, thus 

agricultural conversion is a lowmagnitude threat overall for the 

population and the species as a whole. 

The following sections provide a 

summary of the current threats 

impacting the Santa Cruz cypress. As 

identified above, these threats include 

alteration of the fire regime (Factors A 

and E), competition with nonnative 

species (Factors A and E), climate 

change (Factor A), genetic introgression 

(Factor E), vandalism and unauthorized 

recreational activities (Factors A and E), 

and the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). As 

identified above some of the same 

potential activities that affect the habitat 

(Factor A) of Santa Cruz cypress can 

also affect individuals (Factor E). Where 

appropriate, we discuss impacts to both 

the habitat and to individuals of Santa 

Cruz cypress together for ease of 

discussion and analysis. 

Alteration of Fire Regime 

The long-term persistence of Santa 

Cruz cypress populations can be 

affected by the disruption of the natural 

fire frequency because Santa Cruz 

cypress requires fire (or potentially 

mechanical disturbance in lieu of, or in 

combination with, fire) to reproduce. 

Most Santa Cruz cypress populations 

are located close to residential areas, 

where natural fires from surrounding 

wildland areas are excluded by the 

creation of fire breaks and fuels 

reduction projects. Both fire exclusion 

and fire suppression lengthen the 

interval between fires, thus altering the 

natural fire regime and increasing the 

risk of extirpation from senescence 

(growth phase from full maturity to 

death). Conversely, human ignitions 

contribute to fire intervals that are too 

short, which in turn can inhibit Santa 

Cruz cypress from reaching its 

reproductive potential if stands burn 

prior to trees reaching reproductive age. 

With prevalent fire exclusion on lands 

surrounding Santa Cruz cypress 

occurring, other techniques such as 

mechanical disturbance of the ground, 

removal of litter and nonnative invasive 

species, and clearing the canopy to 

allow sunlight to reach the ground may 

need to be utilized to achieve 

regeneration of the species. Currently, 

mechanical disturbance and litter 

removal at the Bonny Doon Ecological 

Reserve are being implemented on a 

limited basis following the Draft 

Management Plan developed for the 

Bonny Doon Ecological Reserve (Service 

2015, pp. 37, 41, 42). Additionally in 

2005, CAL FIRE developed a vegetation 

management plan for the Bonny Doon 

Ecological Reserve that included 

enhancing sensitive habitat for listed 

species and improving forest health 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8410 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(CAL FIRE 2005, p. 3). This plan has not 

been fully implemented and is currently 

delayed (Service 2015, p. 42). 

The altered fire regime presents a 

high-level threat to the long-term 

persistence of all of the Santa Cruz 

cypress populations and their habitat. 

Santa Cruz cypress depends on fire to 

maintain appropriate habitat conditions 

and to release many of the seeds stored 

in cones in the canopy. As adult trees 

senesce and die, seed production 

decreases, such that there is insufficient 

seed available to regenerate the stand 

(McGraw 2007, p. 24; Service 2015, p. 

25). In the absence of fire, recruitment 

still occurs, but at a low level that is 

likely not sufficient for stand 

replacement (McGraw 2011, p. 2; 

Service 2015, p. 25). To germinate in 

large numbers, the species requires open 

ground and canopy conditions created 

by fires intense enough to kill the parent 

tree. In the absence of fire the species is 

only able to germinate opportunistically 

in rock outcroppings or small areas that 

have been disturbed. Without 

appropriate disturbance from fire, the 

stands could eventually senesce, 

resulting in minimal reproduction in 

small rock outcrops that may be 

inadequate to maintain population 

viability. 

Within the range of the Santa Cruz 

cypress, recent and past fires have been 

documented at the Bonny Doon (2008) 

and Eagle Rock populations (Service 

2015, pp. 23–24), although even-aged 

stands at the Butano Ridge, Bracken 

Brae, and Majors Creek populations 

suggest that past fires have occurred in 

these areas as well. We estimate that 

approximately 50 percent (1,500 Santa 

Cruz cypress individuals) of the Bonny 

Doon population was killed within the 

severely burned areas (Service 2012, 

unpubl. data). This is based on visual 

inspection of the burn intensity map 

and our knowledge of the distribution of 

this population. In 1905, a severe fire 

also destroyed a large portion of the 

Eagle Rock population (Wolf and 

Wagener 1948, p. 218). Prior to the fire, 

there was a ‘‘considerable stand’’ of 

Santa Cruz cypresses, which were used 

by the landowner for timber to build 

barns and other buildings (Wolf and 

Wagener 1948, p. 218). According to 

Lyons (1988, pp. 19–20), another fire 

burned through a majority of the Eagle 

Rock population in 1942, killing most of 

the cypresses. Lyons (1988, p. 19) noted 

that some larger individuals at the Eagle 

Rock site, estimated to be 40–60 years 

old, appeared to have survived the fire. 

Despite fire occurring within the 

known range of Santa Cruz cypress, 

McGraw (2011, p. 2) states that the 

current demographics and natural 

recruitment rates observed in the Majors 

Creek, Eagle Rock, and Butano Ridge 

populations appear to be insufficient to 

maintain the populations in the absence 

of fire (Service 2015, p. 22). 

Additionally, active management to 

address this concern is not occurring at 

this time. The altered fire regime 

presents a threat to the long-term 

persistence of all of the Santa Cruz 

cypress populations, and we consider 

altered fire regime to be a high-level 

threat to the species (Service 2015 p. 

24). See additional discussion in the 

‘‘Alteration of Fire Regime’’ section of 

the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 

23–25). 

Most stands of Santa Cruz cypress 

contain reproductive individuals, so 

most stands are currently facing a 

senescence risk from the absence of fire. 

Recruitment in at least four populations 

(the portion of Bonny Doon population 

that burned in the 2008 Martin Fire, and 

the Eagle Rock, Butano Ridge, and 

Majors Creek populations) is evident; 

however, the current level of 

recruitment is not sufficient to maintain 

the populations in the absence of fire 

(Service 2015, p. 26). This is likely also 

the case with the Bracken Brae 

population and the portion of the Bonny 

Doon population that did not burn. 

Under these conditions most trees 

would become senescent (postreproductive) prior to a return fire, 

resulting in lower stand vitality, 

reduced cone production, and reduced 

seedling establishment. The risk of 

extirpation exists if cypresses senesce 

and their seeds are no longer viable by 

the time fire returns to a stand. This 

may occur if the fire interval is longer 

than the lifespan of trees (Ne’eman et al. 

1999, p. 240). For the purposes of this 

discussion, we estimate the potential 

lifespan of individual Santa Cruz 

cypress trees to be about 100 years 

based on Lyons’ (1988, pp. 2–39) 

estimate (see the ‘‘Life History’’ 

discussion in the Species Report 

(Service 2015, pp. 8–9) for additional 

discussion). 

As discussed above, without fire or 

other appropriate disturbance, we 

expect low recruitment and decreasing 

reproduction as existing trees become 

senescent. This scenario would most 

likely result in population declines as a 

result of mortality of currently existing 

trees, and lack of replacement due to 

low recruitment and declining 

reproduction. The frequency, location, 

and intensity of fire in an area is 

variable and difficult to predict, and 

depends on many factors including 

environmental and human-caused 

factors, management, and suppression 

efforts. For the Santa Cruz cypress there 

have only been one or two recorded 

fires over the past 100 years within the 

areas occupied by the species, and we 

do not expect the fire conditions, 

frequency, or management to change 

significantly in the near future. As a 

result, we do not currently consider the 

fire interval to be adequate to maintain 

populations of the species over the long 

term and consider the extended fire 

interval to be a threat that is likely to 

put the species at risk of extinction in 

the future. 

Competition With Nonnative Species 

The presence of nonnative, invasive 

species impacts the long-term 

persistence of Santa Cruz cypress and 

its habitat both currently and in the 

future through competition and habitat 

modification. Many nonnative species 

have been introduced into Santa Cruz 

cypress habitat through a variety of past 

impacts (e.g., development, 

infrastructure). Significant impacts 

result from Acacia dealbata (silver 

wattle) and Genista monspessulana 

(French broom). Silver wattle and 

French broom are currently impacting 

two populations (i.e., Majors Creek and 

Bonny Doon) and are likely to impact, 

at minimum, two additional 

populations (i.e., Eagle Rock and 

Bracken Brae) due to the cypress’s 

proximity to residential areas where 

ground disturbance activities promote 

nonnative plant invasions. 

Silver wattle is significantly 

impacting the Majors Creek population 

and its habitat by creating dense 

canopies, which can inhibit germination 

and growth of seedlings by blocking 

sunlight needed for cypress growth 

(McGraw 2007, p. 23; Service 2015, pp. 

31–32). French broom is one of the most 

prevalent invasive species in Santa Cruz 

County, distributed at elevations where 

all but a portion of one Santa Cruz 

cypress population occurs (Moore 2002, 

p. 6; Service 2015, p. 32). French broom 

is impacting the Bonny Doon 

population and its habitat by inhibiting 

Santa Cruz cypress seedling 

establishment through competition for 

open, recently disturbed soils that have 

access to abundant sunlight. 

Additionally, but to a lesser degree, 

European annual grasses (present at all 

populations) are known to impact Santa 

Cruz cypress by precluding the 

establishment of seedlings. These 

nonnative shrubs and annual grasses are 

impacting most of the populations of 

Santa Cruz cypress and are expected to 

continue to do so over the long term. We 

consider competition with nonnative 

species to be a moderate-level threat to 

the Santa Cruz cypress. See additional 

discussion in the ‘‘Competition With 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 8411 

Nonnative Plant Species’’ section of the 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 31– 

33). 

Climate Change 

Our analyses under the Act include 

consideration of ongoing and projected 

changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ 

and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’ 

refers to the mean and variability of 

different types of weather conditions 

over time, with 30 years being a typical 

period for such measurements (IPCC 

2013, p. 1450). The term ‘‘climate 

change’’ thus refers to a change in the 

mean or variability of one or more 

measures of climate (e.g., temperature or 

precipitation) that persists for an 

extended period, whether the change is 

due to natural variability or human 

activity (IPCC 2013, p. 1450). Various 

changes in climate may have direct or 

indirect effects on species. These effects 

may be positive, neutral, or negative, 

and they may change over time, 

depending on the species and other 

relevant considerations, such as threats 

in combination and interactions of 

climate with other variables (for 

example, habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 

2014, pp. 4–11). Within central-western 

California (i.e., California coastal 

counties from San Francisco south to 

Santa Barbara, including the range of 

the Santa Cruz cypress), predictions 

indicate warmer winter temperatures, 

earlier warming in the spring, and 

increased summer temperatures (Point 

Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) 

Conservation Science 2011, p. 35), all of 

which will likely result in shifts in 

vegetation types. This can, for example, 

result in increased competition between 

species like Santa Cruz cypress and 

other native and nonnative species 

(Loarie et al. 2008, pp. 1–10), or result 

in habitat changes resulting from altered 

fire frequency and water availability 

(Service 2015, pp. 28–29). Drier 

conditions and increased fire frequency 

that may result from climate change 

could also make conditions somewhat 

more favorable for Santa Cruz cypress. 

However, we anticipate continuing fire 

suppression and fire exclusion practices 

would outweigh any potential favorable 

effects. Thus, while impacts of climate 

change could potentially have either 

positive or negative effects to Santa Cruz 

cypress, the altered fire regime as a 

result of fire exclusion and fire 

suppression practices remains a primary 

threat to the species. We therefore 

consider climate change to be a 

moderate-level threat to the Santa Cruz 

cypress. See additional discussion in 

the ‘‘Climate Change’’ section of the 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 26– 

29). 

Genetic Introgression 

If individuals of different cypress 

species are planted in close proximity, 

they can exchange pollen and may 

produce fertile hybrid offspring, as has 

been documented in a number of plant 

species (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996, 

pp. 98–99). By this means, genes from 

one species can infiltrate into another, 

a process called genetic introgression. 

Santa Cruz cypress may be affected by 

introgression from residential plantings 

of Hesperocyparis macrocarpa 

(Monterey cypress) near the Bonny 

Doon population (V. Haley 1993, pers. 

obs.), plantings of Cupressus glabra 

(Arizona cypress) near the Eagle Rock 

population, and potentially by plantings 

near other populations due to their close 

proximity to residential areas where 

plantings of other cypress species could 

occur. Examination of genetic variation 

among Santa Cruz cypress populations 

and between Santa Cruz cypress and 

neighboring species (Millar and Westfall 

1992, p. 350) indicates the potential that 

hybridization may occur between Santa 

Cruz cypress and the neighboring 

species. The main harmful genetic effect 

of such hybridization on native species 

is the loss of both genetic diversity and 

the ability of native populations to 

continue to persist due to potential loss 

of locally adapted characteristics. The 

resulting hybrid taxa can also reduce the 

growth of, or replace, native species and 

compete for resources otherwise 

available (Vila et al. 2000, pp. 207–217). 

We consider genetic introgression to 

be a low-level threat to the Santa Cruz 

cypress because it is probably a concern 

for only two populations. Genetic 

introgression has not been documented 

for Santa Cruz cypress, but is a potential 

threat given the proximity of non-native 

cypress and the ease with which cypress 

species hybridize. However, 

introgression is a long-term process in 

itself, generally taking many generations 

for significant population-level impacts 

to occur. Given the long generation time 

of the species, genetic introgression is 

currently considered a potential threat 

rather than an imminent threat. See 

additional discussion in the ‘‘Genetic 

Introgression’’ section of the Species 

Report (Service 2015, pp. 30–31). 

Vandalism and Unauthorized 

Recreational Activities 

Vandalism and unauthorized 

recreational activities have been 

documented to impact multiple Santa 

Cruz cypress populations and their 

habitat. These activities result in 

construction of unauthorized trails 

(such as those within the Majors Creek 

population at Wilder Creek State Park) 

(CDPR 2000; K. Barry, Service, 2012, 

pers. obs.), which in turn result in 

erosion (McGraw 2007, p. 22) and 

potentially prevention of seedling 

establishment. Additionally, trails wear 

away substrate from the base of mature 

cypress trees. Although vandalism and 

unauthorized recreational activities are 

not considered to impact the 

populations significantly at this time 

(considered a low-level threat because 

only a small proportion of trees and 

habitat across the species’ range are 

affected by these activities), they remain 

a concern due to the likelihood of 

increased inhabitants in the urbanwildland interface where Santa Cruz 

cypress occurs. See additional 

discussion in the ‘‘Vandalism and 

Unauthorized Recreational Activities’’ 

section of the Species Report (Service 

2015, p. 33). 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 

Reclassifying Santa Cruz cypress from 

endangered to threatened would not 

significantly change the protections 

afforded to this species under the Act. 

Santa Cruz cypress conservation has 

been addressed in some local, State, and 

Federal plans, laws, regulations, and 

policies. Now that most of the trees 

reside in fully protected areas on State 

or County park lands, the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms is 

considered a low-level threat to Santa 

Cruz cypress. The threat of habitat 

alteration has been substantially 

reduced, and, therefore, the concern 

regarding inadequate legal protections 

on the landscape scale has been 

reduced. Although existing regulations 

have resulted in conservation of Santa 

Cruz cypress habitat, inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms is still 

considered a low-level threat because 

the potential remains for destruction or 

alteration of Santa Cruz cypresses and 

their habitat on private lands. However, 

the main concern currently and into the 

future is the lack of ongoing 

management to prevent senescence and 

ensure population persistence. If current 

Santa Cruz cypress habitat becomes 

unfavorable to the species due to lack of 

adequate management, Santa Cruz 

cypress may not persist even if the land 

is sufficiently conserved. See additional 

discussion in the ‘‘Legal Protection’’ 

section of the Species Report (Service 

2015, pp. 34–37). 

Combination of Threats 

The threat to the long-term 

persistence of Santa Cruz cypress is 

compounded by multiple interacting 

factors, specifically: (1) The alteration of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8412 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

fire regimes and lack of species 

management; and (2) human activities, 

nonnative species, and fire. With the 

prevalence of fire exclusion and 

suppression near residential 

communities within the range of the 

species, the opportunity for Santa Cruz 

cypress to regenerate in large pulses 

following fire is reduced. This fire 

suppression coupled with the lack of 

species-specific management is 

resulting in minimal regeneration for 

the species as a whole, which could be 

exacerbated if this situation continues 

into the future. The ability of land 

managers to adequately maintain 

cypress populations on public lands is 

subject to constraints and physical 

barriers, such as the difficulty or 

inability of using fire as a management 

tool due to proximity to development or 

because of air quality standards. 

Additionally, human intrusion into 

previously undisturbed areas 

contributes to colonization of nonnative 

plant species in the remote areas of 

Santa Cruz cypress forests (see the 

‘‘Competition with Nonnative Plant 

Species’’ section of the Species Report 

(Service 2015, pp. 31–33)). This activity 

exacerbates the likelihood for the 

creation of open conditions (e.g., bike 

trails, road cuts, and firebreaks), 

allowing nonnative plants to proliferate 

and compete with the cypress for soil, 

nutrients, and light. If a wildfire is then 

introduced into these new (open) 

conditions, nonnative species that 

compete with Santa Cruz cypress could 

then easily spread. The presence or 

increase in nonnative species can 

inhibit cypress seedlings by blocking 

the sunlight they need to grow (McGraw 

2007, p. 23). See ‘‘Compounding 

Threats’’ section of the Species Report 

(Service 2015, pp. 37–38). 

Overall Summary of Factors Affecting 

Santa Cruz Cypress 

Impacts to the long-term persistence 

of Santa Cruz cypress populations from 

alteration of the fire regime (Factors A 

and E) remains a significant concern 

currently and in the future (i.e., at least 

approximately 100 years, based on the 

potential lifespan of individual Santa 

Cruz cypress trees per Lyons’ (1988, pp. 

2–39) estimate and based on past fire 

interval (two to three documented fires 

in two populations over the past 110 

years)). Because the germination and 

establishment of new seedlings depends 

either on natural fire or a managed 

substitute (e.g., controlled burns or 

mechanical disturbance), appropriate 

fire or disturbance regimes are needed 

to manage the demographic profile of 

the five populations. Lack of fire or 

other disturbance to promote 

germination and seedling establishment 

poses a senescence risk to the stands 

and populations of Santa Cruz cypress 

(Service 2015, p. 30). Without 

recruitment of new individuals, trees in 

the current even-aged stands may 

become senescent (or no longer 

reproductive) and no longer produce 

cones and seeds necessary for long-term 

reproductive success and persistence of 

the populations (which has been 

observed in Santa Cruz cypress 

populations by McGraw (2007, pp. 20– 

21)). While most of the populations 

have been protected through acquisition 

of lands for conservation, no active 

management is currently occurring to 

manage the demographic profile of the 

populations. Research on suitable 

management methods has only begun 

recently at Bonny Doon Ecological 

Reserve (McGraw 2011, entire); future 

management of this population is 

expected to provide additional 

understanding of conditions that would 

promote regeneration, thus providing 

beneficial management 

recommendations that could be applied 

to all populations. 

Although the altered fire regime is 

identified as a high-level impact to 

Santa Cruz cypress at this time, the level 

of impact does not currently place the 

species in danger of extinction because 

of the expected continued presence of 

the populations into the future based on 

the lifespan of individuals and the 

current age structure, and the 

recruitment (albeit minimal overall) that 

has been observed to date. Because the 

majority of individuals in the 

populations are reproductive, additional 

recruitment can be expected, although it 

likely will not be at a level sufficient to 

sustain the populations over the long 

term. 

In addition to altered fire regime, 

other impacts to Santa Cruz cypress and 

its habitat are currently occurring or 

potentially occurring in the future, but 

to a lesser degree than the overall 

impact from an altered fire regime. 

These include competition with 

nonnative, invasive species (Factors A 

and E); climate change (Factor A); 

genetic introgression (Factor E); and 

vandalism or unauthorized recreational 

activities (Factors A and E). Nonnative 

plants are competing with Santa Cruz 

cypress by invading open areas where 

cypress seedlings could become 

established, thus competing for soil, 

nutrients, and light (Service 2015, pp. 

31–33). Climate change may cause 

vegetation shifts and promote more 

frequent and larger stand removal 

wildfires under which the species has 

not evolved (Service 2015, pp. 26–29). 

Genetic introgression of Santa Cruz 

cypress with at least two different 

cypress species could result in 

hybridization and result in the loss of 

Santa Cruz cypress’s competitive 

advantage in its preferred habitat 

(Service 2015, pp. 31–32). Vandalism 

and unauthorized recreational activities 

may inhibit seedling establishment and 

increase erosion (Service 2015, p. 33). 

Additionally, although substantial 

mechanisms are currently in place to 

protect Santa Cruz cypress and its 

habitat, the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to fully 

protect the species from the threats 

described above (Factor D). Based on 

our current analysis and the current 

level of management being 

implemented, the remaining impacts are 

expected to influence Santa Cruz 

cypress’s habitat suitability and its 

ability to reproduce and survive in the 

future. 

In summary, impacts from 

development, agricultural conversion, 

logging, and oil and gas development, 

which were considered imminent at the 

time of listing, have been substantially 

reduced or ameliorated. Other impacts 

identified at or since listing (i.e., 

alteration of fire regime; competition 

with nonnative, invasive species; 

climate change; genetic introgression; 

and vandalism, including unauthorized 

recreational activities) continue to 

impact Santa Cruz cypress or are 

expected to impact the species in the 

future. Although individually these 

impacts (with the exception of altered 

fire regime) are of low or moderate 

concern to the species, their cumulative 

impact can promote and accelerate 

unnatural conditions (Service 2015, pp. 

37–38). For example, human intrusion 

into previously undisturbed areas 

contributes to colonization of nonnative 

plant species in the remote areas of 

Santa Cruz cypress forests, which in 

turn may result in increased wildfires 

and potentially increased community 

concern for wildfire suppression 

activities. These types of interactions 

could become a greater concern to Santa 

Cruz cypress in the future if there is 

increased human activity in cypress 

forests. 

The high-level impact of an altered 

fire regime to Santa Cruz cypress and its 

habitat is of greatest concern at this 

time. The threat to long-term persistence 

of Santa Cruz cypress posed by this 

high-level impact is exacerbated by the 

lack of species management, resulting in 

continued effects to the age structure 

and demographic profile of the species. 

Although operating on the species 

currently, the impacts from an altered 

fire regime, either alone or in 

combination with the other impacts 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 8413 

identified above, do not place the 

species at immediate risk of extinction. 

Reproduction and recruitment is 

evident (although not at a level 

sufficient for long-term persistence) 

based on recent data in at least four 

populations (i.e., the portion of the 

Bonny Doon population that burned in 

the 2008 Martin Fire, and at the Eagle 

Rock, Butano Ridge, and Majors Creek 

populations) (Service 2015, p. 46). 

However, if fire or other disturbance 

does not occur in the future to promote 

germination and seedling establishment 

(whether through a natural fire event or 

active management), senescence could 

result in a downward population trend 

that is likely to place the species in 

danger of extinction. 

Distinguishing Threats for Both Cypress 

Varieties 

As described in the proposed rule and 

Species Report (78 FR 54223; September 

3, 2013; Service 2015, pp. 7–8), recent 

taxonomic evaluations of 

Hesperocyparis abramsiana identified 

two varieties: H. a. var. butanoensis 

(Butano Ridge population) and H. a. var. 

abramsiana (Eagle Rock, Bracken Brae, 

Bonny Doon, and Majors Creek 

populations) (Adams and Bartel 2009, 

pp. 287–299). Therefore, the threats 

analysis provided in the Species Report 

(Service 2015, entire) and summarized 

in this document includes a separate 

evaluation for each of the five 

populations, in part to distinguish the 

level of impact the current threats have 

on the two separate varieties. The 

information summarized below is 

evaluated and described in detail in the 

‘‘Discussion of Threats to the Two 

Separate Varieties’’ section of the 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 38– 

40). 

The Butano Ridge population 

(Hesperocyparis abramsiana var. 

butanoensis) is primarily threatened by 

changes in the historical fire regime and 

the impacts as a result of the changed 

fire regime (Factors A and E). The 

population is located away from 

developed areas, but because it is near 

a lumber operation, fire exclusion and 

suppression activities that alter the fire 

regime are likely in the vicinity. Other 

impacts identified at the time of listing 

are no longer impacting this population 

or are no longer considered significant 

(e.g., logging, oil and gas drilling), in 

large part due to this population now 

being fully protected and managed 

within the boundaries of Pescadero 

Creek County Park. Although this 

variety is not considered a separate 

species, its status as a separate variety 

indicates its divergence from other 

populations of the species. Further 

divergence, and potentially the process 

of speciation, may continue through 

sustained reproductive isolation from 

other Santa Cruz cypress populations. 

Additionally, this is the only location 

for this variety, and it is composed of a 

single stand, thus making it vulnerable 

to an impact such as disease if exposed. 

However, at this time it is highly 

unlikely that potential impacts such as 

development, disease, predation, and 

others (as described in the Species 

Report (Service 2015, pp. 23–40)) would 

occur at the Butano Ridge population. 

An altered fire regime is the main 

concern present at this population, with 

potential concerns currently or in the 

future related to competition with 

nonnative species (Factors A and E) and 

climate change (Factor A). 

Similar to the Butano Ridge 

population described above, the primary 

impact to the Eagle Rock, Bracken Brae, 

Bonny Doon, and Majors Creek 

populations (Hesperocyparis 

abramsiana var. abramsiana) is the 

alteration of the fire regime (Factors A 

and E), which was identified at the time 

of listing. This impact remains present 

at all populations of the Santa Cruz 

cypress, although management actions 

at the Bonny Doon Ecological Reserve 

have included some mechanical 

vegetation removal in an attempt to 

reduce this impact (Service 2015, pp. 

39–40). Impacts from competition with 

nonnative species (Factors A and E) and 

climate change (Factor A) also threaten 

the long-term persistence of both 

varieties of Santa Cruz cypress (in 

addition to vandalism and unauthorized 

recreational activities (Factors A and E), 

and genetic introgression (Factor E) 

potentially impacting the H. a. var. 

abramsiana populations), and there are 

no management actions proposed to 

address these concerns. The existing 

regulatory mechanisms protect the 

species from development activities but 

are inadequate to fully protect the 

species from these other impacts (Factor 

D). Please see the ‘‘Current Threats’’ and 

‘‘Discussion of Threats to the Two 

Separate Varieties’’ sections of the 

Species Report for additional discussion 

related to current or potential threats to 

these Santa Cruz cypress populations 

(Service 2015, pp. 23–40). 

Recovery and Recovery Plan 

Implementation 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. A recovery plan for the Santa 

Cruz cypress was developed in 

September 1998 (Service 1998, entire). 

Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), recovery 

plans must, to the maximum extent 

practicable, include: ‘‘Objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

[section 4 of the Act], that the species 

be removed from the list.’’ However, 

revisions to the list (adding, removing, 

or reclassifying a species) must reflect 

determinations made in accordance 

with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. 

Section 4(a)(1) requires that the 

Secretary determine whether a species 

is endangered or threatened (or not) 

because of one or more of five threat 

factors. Section 4(b) of the Act requires 

that the determination be made ‘‘solely 

on the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ Therefore, 

recovery criteria should help indicate 

when we would anticipate an analysis 

of the five threat factors under section 

4(a)(1) to result in a determination that 

the species is no longer an endangered 

species or threatened species because of 

any of the five statutory factors. 

Thus, while recovery plans provide 

important guidance to the Service, 

States, and other partners on methods of 

minimizing threats to listed species and 

measurable objectives against which to 

measure progress towards recovery, they 

are not regulatory documents and 

cannot substitute for the determinations 

and promulgation of regulations 

required under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act. A decision to revise the status of or 

remove a species from the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Plants 

(50 CFR 17.12) is ultimately based on an 

analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data then available to 

determine whether a species is no 

longer an endangered species or a 

threatened species, regardless of 

whether that information differs from 

the recovery plan. 

The Recovery Plan states that Santa 

Cruz cypress can be reclassified to 

threatened status when protection is 

secured for all five populations and 

their habitat from the primary threats of 

logging, agricultural conversion, and 

development (Service 1998, p. 30). This 

criterion was intended to address the 

point at which imminent threats to the 

species had been ameliorated so that the 

populations were no longer in 

immediate risk of extirpation. Because 

of its limited range and distribution, we 

determined that essentially all of the 

known habitat is necessary to conserve 

the species. At the time the Recovery 

Plan was prepared, we estimated that 

areal extent totaled 356 ac (144 ha). 

After more accurate mapping (McGraw 

2007, entire), we now estimate that areal 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8414 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

extent totals approximately 188 ac (76 

ha) (Service 2015, p. 43). Additionally, 

estimated abundance of individuals in 

all populations has changed over time, 

from approximately 2,300 individuals at 

the time of listing in 1987, to a current 

range of 33,000 to 44,000 individuals 

(although the latter estimate is variable 

due to mortality and regeneration 

following the 2008 Martin Fire that 

burned 520 ac (210 ha) of land and a 

portion of the Bonny Doon population) 

(see Table 1 and the Bonny Doon 

population discussion under the 

‘‘Population Descriptions’’ section of the 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 6, 15– 

17)). It is important to note that the 

updated estimates for species 

abundance and areal extent do not 

illustrate trends but rather improved 

information about the species over time. 

As explained in more detail in the 

Species Report (Service 2015, p. 43), 

three of five populations occur 

primarily or entirely on lands that are 

being managed for conservation 

purposes, including the Butano Ridge 

population at Pescadero Creek County 

Park, the Bonny Doon population at 

Bonny Doon Ecological Reserve 

managed by the California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the 

Eagle Rock population at Big Basin State 

Park managed by the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

(CDPR). A fourth population (Majors 

Creek) is primarily on lands at Gray 

Whale Ranch State Park, with a small 

portion on privately owned land. The 

fifth population (Bracken Brae) is 

entirely on private lands owned by a 

conservation-oriented landowner; this 

land is also designated by the County of 

Santa Cruz as environmentally sensitive 

habitat, which places restrictions on 

most development. Because four of the 

five populations, either wholly or 

primarily, occur on park or reserve 

lands, most of the individuals in the 

Bonny Doon, Butano Ridge, Majors 

Creek, and Eagle Rock populations are 

protected against the threats identified 

as imminent (logging, agricultural 

conversion, and development) at the 

time of listing and in the Recovery Plan. 

Because the Bracken Brae population is 

being managed by a conservationoriented landowner and county 

restrictions are in place that would 

restrict most development, 

development-related threats to this 

population appear negligible. Therefore, 

we conclude that the downlisting 

criterion has been substantially met. 

The Recovery Plan also states that 

Santa Cruz cypress can be delisted 

when all five populations are assured of 

long-term reproductive success, with 

insurance against failure provided by 

the availability of banked seed (Service 

1998, p. 45). This criterion was intended 

to address the point at which long-term 

threats to the species’ persistence had 

been addressed and its persistence 

ensured. As explained in more detail in 

the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 

18–20), Santa Cruz cypress requires fire 

or other disturbance for germination of 

seeds and recruitment of new 

individuals into the populations. As 

detailed above in the Summary of 

Biological Status and Factors Affecting 

the Species section and in the Species 

Report (Service 2015, pp. 23–25), 

alteration of fire regime and lack of 

management are likely to significantly 

impact the long-term persistence of the 

species. Additionally, only seed for the 

Bonny Doon, Majors Creek, and Bracken 

Brae populations is stored in a 

conservation bank; no seed has been 

banked for the Eagle Rock or Butano 

Ridge populations. Therefore, based on 

our analysis of the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

delisting criterion for the species has 

not been met. 

In addition to the significant 

protections now afforded to Santa Cruz 

cypress as outlined above, various 

studies have occurred since 

development of the Recovery Plan that 

aid in our understanding of the status of 

Santa Cruz cypress. For example: 

• Recent surveys indicate that four of 

the five stands of Santa Cruz cypress 

contain a larger number of individuals 

than was estimated at the time of listing 

and in the Recovery Plan (Service 2015, 

p. 43). 

• Although data indicate the majority 

of trees are reproductive, many trees (as 

indicated by surveys conducted 

specifically at Butano Ridge and Majors 

Creek populations) are even-aged (occur 

in stands or populations with 

individuals all of approximately the 

same age). Even-aged stands indicate 

that vigorous recruitment (survival of 

seedlings to reproductive age and into 

the adult population) is not evident 

(McGraw 2011, p. 26). In contrast, 

vigorous recruitment would be 

indicated by stands or populations 

including individuals of multiple sizes 

or age classes representing various life 

stages of the species. 

• While seed production appears to 

be strong at each of the sampled 

populations, recruitment, which 

depends more on extrinsic factors such 

as the availability of appropriate habitat 

for seedling survival, is more variable 

among stands even within a population. 

These and other data that we have 

analyzed indicate that most threats 

identified at listing and during the 

development of the Recovery Plan are 

reduced in areas occupied by Santa 

Cruz cypress and that the status of Santa 

Cruz cypress has improved, primarily 

due to the habitat protection provided 

by CDFW, CDPR, the County of San 

Mateo, and the County of Santa Cruz. 

However, threats associated with a lack 

of habitat management and alterations 

of the fire regime continue to impede 

the species’ ability to recover. 

Additional information on recovery 

and recovery plan implementation are 

described in the ‘‘Progress Toward 

Recovery’’ section of the Species Report 

(Service 2015, pp. 39–43). 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In the Species Report, we state 

‘‘Historical distribution of Santa Cruz 

cypress beyond the five currently 

recognized populations is unknown 

(Service 2015, p. 11).’’ This should be 

corrected to say ‘‘Historical distribution 

of Santa Cruz cypress beyond the range 

of five currently recognized populations 

is unknown.’’ As stated in the Species 

Report, there are reports of a few 

scattered trees along Empire Grade Road 

(Service 2015, p. 13) that are not 

believed to be interbreeding with any of 

the five main populations. In addition to 

this occurrence, there is a California 

Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 

2014) record of a historical occurrence 

that was found near Mount Hermon in 

the Santa Cruz Mountains (CNDDB 

element occurrence index 72235). This 

record was not included in the previous 

report because the exact area of 

collection was unspecified, and this 

occurrence has never been reaffirmed 

after the initial collection was made in 

1940. The inclusion of this historical 

occurrence falls within the currently 

recognized species range, and does not 

change the existing information we have 

on this species. 

We have not made any substantive 

changes in this final rule based on the 

comments that were received during the 

comment period, but have added or 

corrected text to clarify the information 

that was presented. One peer reviewer 

provided new information stating that 

Santa Cruz cypress populations are most 

likely experiencing a net reduction in 

fire frequency relative to what they 

experienced prior to Euro-American 

settlement, and it is unknown if 

regeneration of the populations can be 

sustained in the absence of human 

intervention. This information was 

incorporated into the Species Report for 

the species (Service 2015, pp. 18–20, 

25). 

On July 1, 2014, we published a final 

policy interpreting the phrase 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (79 FR 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 8415 

37578). We have revised our discussion 

of ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ as it 

relates to the Santa Cruz cypress in the 

Determination section below to be 

consistent with our new policy. 

Although the final policy’s approach for 

determining whether a ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ analysis is required 

is different than that discussed in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 54221), applying 

the policy did not affect the outcome of 

the final status determination for the 

Santa Cruz cypress. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

September 3, 2013 (78 FR 54221), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by November 4, 2013. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. Newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment were 

published in the local Santa Cruz 

Sentinel and San Mateo County Times. 

We did not receive any requests for a 

public hearing. 

During the comment period, we 

received four peer review comment 

letters and one other comment on the 

proposed reclassification of Santa Cruz 

cypress. All substantive information 

related to the reclassification of the 

species or the taxonomic change for 

Santa Cruz cypress provided during the 

comment period was fully considered in 

development of this final determination 

and is addressed in the responses to 

comments, below. All public and peer 

review comments are available at 

www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS– 

R8–ES–2013–0092) and from our 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office by 

request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from six knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with Santa Cruz cypress and 

its habitat, the ecology of similar 

cypress species, and the role of fire in 

cypress ecology and the Santa Cruz 

mountains. We received responses from 

four of the peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the reclassification of Santa Cruz 

cypress. Two peer reviewers supported 

our finding that the Santa Cruz cypress 

warranted reclassification to threatened, 

and provided no additional comments. 

Two other peer reviewers replied with 

comments, and generally concurred 

with our methods, but disagreed about 

the appropriateness of reclassifying the 

species without meeting the recovery 

criteria identified in the Recovery Plan 

(Service 1998, p. 30). The two peer 

reviewers provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

recommendations on how to manage for 

the conservation of Santa Cruz cypress 

and its habitat. All recommendations 

have been acknowledged and will be 

considered during the development of 

future management and recovery 

strategies. 

Response to Peer Reviewer Comments 

(1) Comment: Two peer reviewers 

stated that Santa Cruz cypress does not 

meet the criteria for reclassification 

from endangered to threatened found in 

the Recovery Plan for the Santa Cruz 

Cypress (Service 1998, p. 30). 

Specifically, one reviewer commented 

that protection has not been secured for 

all five populations and their habitat 

from the threat of development, as 

stated in the criteria for reclassification 

in the Recovery Plan. This reviewer 

identified the Bracken Brae population 

as unprotected because it is owned by 

a private landowner. 

Our Response: In the Recovery and 

Recovery Plan Implementation section 

above and in the ‘‘Progress Toward 

Recovery’’ section of the Species Report 

(Service 2015, pp. 39–43), we 

acknowledge that all known habitat is 

important to the conservation of the 

Santa Cruz cypress, and that the 

Bracken Brae population is important 

for the recovery of the species, and 

explain our rationale for why the 

recovery criterion has been substantially 

met for downlisting. While the Bracken 

Brae population is not in conservation 

ownership, county restrictions are in 

place that would restrict development. 

As discussed above and further in the 

next response, we conclude that 

development-related threats appear 

negligible for this population. This 

situation, along with protection of all or 

the majority of the other four 

populations on State lands, leads us to 

conclude that the criterion to reclassify 

the species to threatened has been 

substantially met. 

Additionally, since the Recovery Plan 

criteria were developed, we now know 

there are more individuals within all of 

the Santa Cruz cypress populations than 

was known at the time of listing. The 

greater number of individuals within 

each population, in combination with 

the conservation of much of the habitat 

on public lands, suggests that this 

species is no longer facing imminent 

destruction from the threats identified 

in the Recovery Plan (i.e., logging, 

agricultural conversion, and 

development). Thus, while the Recovery 

Plan provides important guidance on 

the direction and strategy for recovery, 

and can indicate when a rulemaking 

process may be initiated, the 

determination to reclassify a species on 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12) is 

ultimately based on an analysis of 

whether a species meets the definition 

of an endangered species or threatened 

species. Please see the ‘‘Progress 

Toward Recovery’’ section of the 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 39– 

43) and the Recovery and Recovery Plan 

Implementation section above and in 

the proposed rule (78 FR 54221) for 

more detailed discussions of the 

Recovery Plan criteria. 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer did 

not agree that the threat of land use 

conversion in the Bracken Brae 

population had been diminished since 

the time of listing to a ‘‘minor concern.’’ 

This peer reviewer specifically stated 

that the Bracken Brae population is not 

secured from the threat of development 

or conversion because legal constraints 

have not been placed on development of 

the land. 

Our Response: The County of Santa 

Cruz has designated the area where the 

Bracken Brae population occurs as an 

environmentally sensitive habitat area 

which requires that this habitat be 

preserved through County ordinance as 

part of the County’s General Plan 

(Chapter 16.32.090(C)(1)(a) and 

(C)(2)(b)) (County of Santa Cruz 2012, 

entire). Designated environmentally 

sensitive habitat, although not 

completely secure from development 

activities, has certain specific 

development restrictions that are 

intended to protect these areas and 

includes restrictions specifically related 

to protecting Santa Cruz cypress groves. 

In addition to the County restrictions, 

the species would still remain listed as 

endangered by the State, and threatened 

by the Federal Government, both of 

which offer protections for the species 

(when there is a Federal nexus) and its 

habitat that are discussed in the ‘‘Legal 

Protection’’ section of the Species 

Report (Service 2015, p. 34). 

Although the Bracken Brae 

population does not have the same level 

of habitat conservation as other Santa 

Cruz cypress populations, the remaining 

County, State, and Federal protections 

will guide the future use of the private 

land for the continued protection of the 

species. Further, the land is currently 

owned by a conservation-oriented 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8416 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

landowner, and development is not 

anticipated. Therefore, we have 

determined that the threat of land 

conversion for the Bracken Brae 

population should still be classified as 

a minor concern compared to other 

potential impacts. We also conclude 

that the intent of the recovery criterion 

was to preserve the habitat from any 

imminent threats (see Service 1998, pp. 

iii, 1, 29) and has been met. 

(3) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that all of the Santa Cruz cypress 

populations near developed areas were 

essentially unprotected because 

development has an indirect impact on 

the ability of the species to persist by 

altering the fire regime such that 

regeneration is no longer possible at 

levels necessary to sustain populations. 

Our Response: We agree that adjacent 

developed areas can have indirect 

impacts on the alteration of the fire 

regime. In the Species Report (Service 

2015, p. 25), we discuss how either a 

longer or shorter fire return interval can 

disrupt the ecology of the cypresses and 

be detrimental to their long-term 

survival, and that fire-return intervals 

are most likely to be disrupted near 

areas of residential or commercial 

development. While we acknowledge 

that the populations near developed 

areas are at a higher risk of a disrupted 

fire-return interval, we have determined 

that the habitat is still protected from 

imminent destruction and that the level 

of threat is commensurate to a 

threatened rather than an endangered 

species. 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that Santa Cruz cypress 

populations are most likely 

experiencing a net reduction in fire 

frequency relative to what they 

experienced prior to Euro-American 

settlement, and it is unknown if 

regeneration of the populations can be 

sustained in the absence of human 

intervention. The reviewer provided a 

personal observation of how the absence 

of stand-replacing fires in a similar 

cypress species (MacNab cypress 

[Hesperocyparis macnabiana]) can lead 

to the gradual decline of the population. 

Our Response: See our response to 

comment (3) above for a discussion and 

our evaluation of the impacts of fire 

ecology on Santa Cruz cypress. We 

appreciated this new information based 

on the peer reviewer’s observation of a 

related species. Studies of closely 

related species with similar life-history 

characteristics can offer insight into the 

ecology of Santa Cruz cypress. Studies 

of similar species (i.e., surrogate 

species) can bolster our knowledge of 

their life history. This information 

builds upon our previous knowledge 

and provides additional insight into the 

fire ecology necessary for Santa Cruz 

cypress persistence. We consider this 

complementary biological and 

ecological information and have 

included this information as an 

addendum to the Species Report. 

Comments from the State and Counties 

Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states, 

‘‘the Secretary shall . . . give actual 

notice of the proposed regulation 

(including the complete text of the 

regulation) to the State agency in each 

State in which the species is believed to 

occur, and to each county or equivalent 

jurisdiction in which the species is 

believed to occur, and invite the 

comment of such agency, and each such 

jurisdiction, thereon.’’ We submitted the 

proposed regulation to the State of 

California but received no formal 

comments from the State regarding the 

proposal. Although formal comments 

were not received, we note that Santa 

Cruz cypress is listed by the State as an 

endangered species; therefore, the 

reclassification of the species from 

federally endangered to federally 

threatened would likely have little or no 

effect on existing State protections. We 

also provided notice to the Counties of 

San Mateo and Santa Cruz at the time 

of the proposed rulemaking. We did not 

receive any comments from the two 

counties. 

Public Comments 

We received one public comment 

letter during the comment period for 

this rule. 

(5) Comment: The commenter stated 

that Santa Cruz cypress should remain 

at the highest level of protection 

‘‘because of climate change and habitat 

loss.’’ The commenter did not include 

any supporting information or analyses 

regarding Santa Cruz cypress or the 

ecology of the Santa Cruz area. 

Response: We discuss both the effects 

of climate change and habitat loss on 

Santa Cruz cypress in the Species 

Report (Service 2015, pp. 26–29, 38). 

With respect to both of these impacts, 

the commenter did not provide any new 

or additional supporting information 

that was specific to the effects on Santa 

Cruz cypress which we have not already 

evaluated. While we acknowledge that 

the effects of climate change and habitat 

loss are still a concern for the species, 

we have determined that the level of 

threat is commensurate to a threatened 

species rather than an endangered 

species. 

(6) Comment: The commenter 

expressed concern with the peer review 

process, and questioned the bias of the 

peer review panel. 

Response: In order to ensure the 

quality and credibility of the scientific 

information we use to make decisions, 

we have implemented a formal ‘‘peer 

review’’ process for listing and recovery 

documents, as required according to our 

guidelines for peer review, which 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270). We consult 

experts to ensure that our decisions are 

based on sound science. The selection 

of participants in a peer review is based 

on expertise, with due consideration 

given to independence and potential 

conflicts of interest. The peer reviewers 

for the Santa Cruz cypress were chosen 

based on their expertise demonstrated 

by published research on western 

hemisphere cypress taxonomy, 

population dynamics, serotiny 

(ecological relationships of cone-bearing 

plants to fire), California fire regimes, or 

the ecology of Santa Cruz area flora. 

Determination 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. An assessment of the need 

for a species’ protection under the Act 

is based on whether a species is in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. As 

required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 

we conducted a review of the status of 

this plant and assessed the five factors 

to evaluate whether Santa Cruz cypress 

is in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by the Santa 

Cruz cypress. We reviewed information 

presented in the 2011 petition, 

information available in our files and 

gathered through our 90-day finding (77 

FR 32922; June 24, 2012) in response to 

this petition, and other available 

published and unpublished 

information. We also consulted with 

species experts and land management 

staff with CDFW, CDPR, the County of 

San Mateo, and the County of Santa 

Cruz, who are actively managing for the 

conservation of Santa Cruz cypress. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 8417 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the 

exposure causes actual impacts to the 

species. If there is exposure to a factor, 

but no response, or only a positive 

response, that factor is not a threat. If 

there is exposure and the species 

responds negatively, the factor may be 

a threat and we then attempt to 

determine how significant the threat is. 

If the threat is significant, it may drive, 

or contribute to, the risk of extinction of 

the species such that the species 

warrants listing as endangered or 

threatened as those terms are defined by 

the Act. This does not necessarily 

require empirical proof of a threat. The 

combination of exposure and some 

corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively is not 

sufficient to compel a finding that 

listing is appropriate; we require 

evidence that these factors are operative 

threats that act on the species to the 

point that the species meets the 

definition of endangered or threatened 

under the Act. 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as any species that is ‘‘in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range’’ and a 

threatened species as any species 

‘‘which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ We find 

that the Santa Cruz cypress is not 

presently in danger of extinction 

throughout its entire range based on the 

severity and immediacy of threats 

currently impacting the species. As a 

result of recent information, we know 

that there are a significantly larger 

number of Santa Cruz cypress 

individuals than were known at the 

time of listing (Service 2009, p. 13; 

Service 2015, p. 45) and that there is 

significant conservation of lands that 

support the populations. Significant 

impacts at the time of listing that could 

have resulted in the extirpation of all or 

parts of populations have been 

eliminated or reduced since listing. We 

conclude that the previously recognized 

impacts to Santa Cruz cypress from 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range (specifically, residential 

development, agricultural conversion, 

logging, and oil and gas drilling) (Factor 

A); overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes (Factor B); disease or 

predation (Factor C); and other natural 

or human-made factors affecting its 

continued existence (specifically, 

reproductive isolation) (Factor E) do not 

rise to a level of significance, either 

individually or in combination, such 

that the species is currently in danger of 

extinction. 

However, alteration of the fire regime 

(Factors A and E) has the potential to 

disrupt the long-term persistence of the 

species across its entire range (resulting 

in the species potentially facing a 

senescence risk in the future) if fire 

continues to be excluded or suppressed 

near these populations. At least four 

populations of Santa Cruz cypress 

contain some proportion of reproductive 

individuals and also exhibit some level 

of recruitment (the portion of Bonny 

Doon population that burned in the 

2008 Martin Fire, and the Eagle Rock, 

Butano Ridge, and Majors Creek 

populations). However, without fire or 

other appropriate disturbance to 

simulate fire, we expect the level of 

reproduction and recruitment to 

decrease as existing trees become 

senescent. Given the potential lifespan 

of the Santa Cruz cypress of 

approximately 100 years, we would 

expect to see population declines over 

this timeframe as a result of mortality of 

currently existing trees, and lack of 

replacement due to low recruitment and 

declining reproduction, leading 

eventually to the species becoming in 

danger of extinction in the future. 

Santa Cruz cypress also will continue 

to be impacted by competition with 

nonnative, invasive species (Factors A 

and E); genetic introgression (Factor E); 

vandalism and unauthorized 

recreational activities (Factors A and E); 

and the effects of climate change (Factor 

A and E). Additionally, the existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to fully protect the species from the 

threats listed above (Factor D). However, 

the severity and magnitude of threats, 

both individually and in combination, 

and the likelihood that any one event 

would affect all populations is 

significantly reduced as a result of the 

removal of multiple threats, the reduced 

impact of most remaining threats, and 

the extensive amount of conservation 

occurring throughout the range of the 

species (including, but not limited to, 

the extensive preservation of occupied 

lands in perpetuity and development of 

management plans or guidance within 

at least one population (Bonny Doon)). 

In conclusion, after review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information pertaining to the species 

and its habitat, we have determined that 

the ongoing threats are not of sufficient 

imminence, intensity, or magnitude to 

indicate that Santa Cruz cypress is 

presently in danger of extinction 

throughout all its range. Although 

threats to Santa Cruz cypress still exist 

and will continue into the foreseeable 

future, the implementation of 

conservation measures or regulatory 

actions has greatly reduced the 

imminence and severity of threats to the 

Santa Cruz cypress and its habitat. All 

five populations are primarily 

threatened by changes in the historical 

fire regime. Additionally, threats from 

competition with nonnative species and 

climate change exist for all populations. 

Our evaluation of the best available 

information indicates that the overall 

level of threats is not significantly 

different at any of these populations 

(Service 2015, pp. 24–41), with the 

primary current threat to all populations 

being alteration of fire regime. We, 

therefore, conclude that Santa Cruz 

cypress is not currently in danger of 

extinction, but is threatened with 

becoming an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range. 

Because we have determined that 

Santa Cruz cypress is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range, no portion of 

its range can be ‘‘significant’’ for 

purposes of the definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ See the Service’s final policy 

interpreting the phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ (79 FR 37578; July 

1, 2014). Therefore, on the basis of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that the Santa Cruz 

cypress now meets the definition of a 

threatened species (i.e., is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range) and are reclassifying the Santa 

Cruz cypress from an endangered 

species to a threatened species in 

accordance with sections 3(20) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Effects of This Rule 

This rule will revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) 

to reclassify Santa Cruz cypress from 

endangered to threatened on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants. 

However, this reclassification does not 

significantly change the protections 

afforded this species under the Act. 

Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, all 

Federal agencies must ensure that any 

actions they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of Santa Cruz 

cypress. Whenever a species is listed as 

threatened, the Act allows promulgation 

of special rules under section 4(d) that 

modify the standard protections for 

threatened species found under section 

9 of the Act and Service regulations at 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8418 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

50 CFR 17.31 (for wildlife) and 17.71 

(for plants), when it is deemed 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the species. No 

special section 4(d) rules are proposed, 

or anticipated to be proposed, for Santa 

Cruz cypress, because there is currently 

no conservation need to do so for this 

species. Recovery actions directed at 

Santa Cruz cypress will continue to be 

implemented, as funding allows, as 

outlined in the Recovery Plan for this 

species (Service 1998, entire). 

Required Determinations 

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. 

No tribal lands are within the range of 

the Santa Cruz cypress. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We determined that environmental 

assessments and environmental impact 

statements, as defined under the 

authority of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), need not be prepared in 

connection with regulations adopted 

pursuant to Section 4(a) of the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this final rule is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– 

0092 or upon request from the Field 

Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are employees of the Pacific Southwest 

Regional Office in Sacramento, 

California, in coordination with 

employees of the Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Office in Ventura, California. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) as follows: 

■ a. By removing the entry for 

‘‘Cupressus abramsiana’’ under 

CONIFERS, and 

■ b. By adding an entry for 

‘‘Hesperocyparis abramsiana’’ under 

CONIFERS to read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Scientific name Common name 

*******

CONIFERS

* * * * * * * 

Hesperocyparis 

abramsiana.

Santa Cruz cypress U.S.A. (CA) ............. Cupressaceae ........ T 252 NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 1, 2016. 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03296 Filed 2–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 141021887–5172–02] 

RIN 0648–XE450 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of 

Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is reallocating the 

projected unused amounts of the 

Community Development Quota pollock 

directed fishing allowance from the 

Aleutian Islands subarea to the Bering 

Sea subarea. This action is necessary to 

provide opportunity for harvest of the 

2016 total allowable catch of pollock, 

consistent with the goals and objectives 

of the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES