[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18722-18739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06740]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0042; FXES1113090FEDR-223-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BD00


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification 
of the Endangered Layia carnosa (Beach Layia) to Threatened With 
Section 4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are 
reclassifying the plant beach layia (Layia carnosa) from an endangered 
to a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), due to substantial improvements in the species' overall 
status since its original listing as endangered in 1992. This action is 
based on a thorough review of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, which indicates that beach layia no longer meets the 
definition of an endangered species under the Act. Beach layia will 
remain protected as a threatened species under the Act. We are also 
finalizing a rule under section 4(d) of the Act that provides for the 
conservation of beach layia.

DATES: This rule is effective May 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, supporting documents we used in preparing 
this rule, and public comments we received are available on the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-
0042.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya Sommer, Field Supervisor, Arcata 
Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Rd., Arcata, CA 95521; telephone 
707-822-7201.
    Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions

    On June 22, 1992, we listed the beach layia as an endangered 
species (57 FR 27848). On September 29, 1998, we finalized a recovery 
plan for this and six other coastal species (Service 1998, entire). In 
2011, we completed a 5-year review (Service 2011, entire) and concluded 
that there was evidence to support a decision to reclassify beach layia 
from an endangered species to a threatened species under the Act. We 
announced the availability of this review on April 27, 2012 (77 FR 
25112).
    On September 30, 2020, we proposed to reclassify beach layia from 
an endangered species to a threatened species with a rule issued under 
section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule'') to provide for the conservation 
of beach layia (85 FR 61684). On April 13, 2021, we reopened the public 
comment period for the proposed rule and announced a public 
informational meeting and public hearing (86 FR 19184), which we held 
on April 29, 2021.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In this rule, we make certain nonsubstantive, editorial changes to 
some text that we presented in the proposed rule, and we include a 
minor amount of new information (e.g., some updated abundance 
information and new references) that we received or that became 
available since the proposed rule published. However, this new 
information did not change our analysis, rationales, or determination 
for either

[[Page 18723]]

the reclassification of the beach layia to a threatened species 
(``downlisting'') or the 4(d) rule for the species.

I. Reclassification Determination

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly related to 
downlisting beach layia in this rule. For more information on the 
species' description, life history, genetics, and habitat, please refer 
to the May 8, 2018, SSA report (Service 2018, entire), which is a 
comprehensive assessment of the biological status of beach layia. At 
the time of listing (57 FR 27848; June 22, 1992), we determined that 
human-induced disturbances (particularly off-highway vehicle (OHV) 
activity, but also other disturbances from agriculture, pedestrians, 
development, etc.) were significant threats to beach layia, resulting 
in ongoing negative population or rangewide impacts. Thus, we 
determined that the best available information indicated that the 
species was in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Since 
that time, these activities have been significantly reduced, especially 
OHV activity, with records of the species demonstrating positive 
responses in abundance. Additionally, significant areas have been set 
aside as preserves and conservation areas. After taking into 
consideration our threats analysis and recovery criteria (Service 1998, 
pp. 43-48), we have determined that the species no longer meets the 
Act's definition of an endangered species but does meet the Act's 
definition of a threatened species (likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future). Given this information, the 
best available scientific and commercial information now indicate that 
the species has improved to the point that it can be downlisted.
    The SSA report provides a thorough account of the species' overall 
condition currently and into the future. In this discussion, we 
summarize the conclusions of that assessment, including: (1) The 
species' description, ecology, habitat, and resource needs; (2) beach 
layia's current condition, including population abundance, 
distribution, and factors affecting its viability; and (3) potential 
future conditions. The full report can be accessed on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0042.

Species Description

    Beach layia is a succulent annual herb belonging to the sunflower 
family (Asteraceae). Plants range up to 6 inches (in) (15.2 centimeters 
(cm)) tall and 16 in (40.6 cm) across (Baldwin et al. 2012, p. 369). 
Characteristics distinguishing beach layia from similar species include 
its fleshy leaves; inconspicuous flower heads with short (0.08 to 0.1 
in (2 to 2.5 millimeter (mm)) long) white ray flowers (occasionally 
purple) and yellow disk flowers; and bristles around the top of the 
one-seeded achene, or dry fruit (Service 1998, p. 43).

Ecology, Habitat, and Resource Needs of Beach Layia

    Beach layia germinates during the rainy season between fall and 
mid-winter, blooms in spring (March to July), and completes its life 
cycle before the dry season (July to September) (Service 1998, p. 45). 
Populations tend to be patchy and subject to large annual fluctuations 
in size and dynamic changes in local distribution associated with the 
shifts in dune blowouts, remobilization, and natural dune stabilization 
that occur in the coastal dune ecosystem (Service 1998, p. 45). Beach 
layia plants often occur where sparse vegetation traps wind-dispersed 
seeds, but causes minimal shading. Seeds are dispersed by wind mostly 
during late spring and summer months (Service 1998, p. 45). 
Additionally, beach layia is self-compatible (i.e., able to be 
fertilized by its own pollen), is capable of self-pollination, and is 
visited by a variety of insects that may assist in cross-pollination 
(Sahara 2000, entire). Although the role of pollinators is currently 
unclear, sexual reproduction does add to genetic diversity.
    Beach layia occurs in open spaces of sandy soil between the low-
growing perennial plants in the Abronia latifolia--Ambrosia chamissonis 
herbaceous alliance (dune mat) and Leymus mollis herbaceous alliance 
(sea lyme grass patches) (Sawyer et al. 2009, pp. 743-745, 958-959). 
Typically, the total vegetation cover in both communities is relatively 
sparse, and many annual species, including beach layia, colonize the 
space between established, tufted perennials. Beach layia can also 
occur in narrow bands of moderately disturbed habitat along the edges 
of trails and roads in dune systems dominated by invasive species.
    Coastal dune systems are composed of a mosaic of vegetation 
communities of varying successional stages (see additional discussion 
in section 4.4 of the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 9-11)). Beach layia 
occurs in early to mid-successional communities in areas where sand is 
actively being deposited or eroding. Too much sand movement prevents 
plants from establishing, but areas with some movement on a periodic 
basis support early successional communities. Movement of sand by wind 
is essential for the development and sustainability of a dune system. 
Wind is also important to beach layia specifically because it is the 
mechanism by which seeds are dispersed. The achenes (a small, dry, one-
seeded fruit that does not open to release the seed) have pappus 
(feathery bristles) that allow them to be carried by wind for a short 
distance. Although not all seeds may land on suitable habitat, this 
adaptation allows the small annual to spread across the landscape into 
uninhabited areas.
    As a winter germinating annual, beach layia requires rainfall 
during the winter months (November through February) for germination 
and, although it is relatively tolerant to the drought-like conditions 
of upland dunes, it does need some moisture through the spring to 
prevent desiccation. Moisture also reduces the risk of burial, as dry 
sand is more mobile and mortality caused by burial has been documented 
(Imper 2014, p. 6).
    The overall resource needs that beach layia requires in order for 
individuals to complete their life cycles and for populations to 
maintain viability are:
    (1) Sandy soils with sparse native vegetation cover,
    (2) Rainfall during the winter germination period,
    (3) Sunlight (full sun exposure for photosynthesis), and
    (4) Unknown degree of cross-pollination (to add to genetic 
diversity).

Species Distribution and Abundance

    For the purposes of our analysis as summarized in our SSA report 
(Service 2018, entire), we grouped the populations by ecoregions based 
on average annual rainfall (precipitation is directly correlated with 
abundance for this species), habitat characteristics, and distance 
between population centers. The North Coast Ecoregion contains the 
largest and most resilient populations and receives the highest average 
annual rainfall. The Central Coast Ecoregion receives less rain than 
the North Coast Ecoregion but more than the South Coast Ecoregion, and 
is comprised of three small populations on the Monterey peninsula that 
are less resilient due to low abundance, although habitat quality is 
high at two of the sites. The South Coast Ecoregion, both historically 
and currently, consists of a single population on the Vandenberg Space 
Force Base (SFB; formerly Vandenberg Air Force Base). Average annual 
rainfall varies across the three ecoregions. Rainfall in the North

[[Page 18724]]

Coast Ecoregion is around 38 in (96 cm), while the Central Coast 
Ecoregion receives 20 in (51 cm), and the South Coast Ecoregion 
receives 14 in (36 cm) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) 2017).
    Historical distribution of beach layia is similar to that known 
currently, while abundance values have increased, primarily due to 
increased survey efforts, amelioration of some threats, and a better 
understanding of the species' reproduction pattern following years with 
high amounts of rainfall. The current distribution includes populations 
spread across dune systems in the following geographic areas 
(ecoregions) covering more than 500 miles (mi) (805 kilometers (km)) of 
shoreline in northern, central, and southern California (see figures 7-
13 and table 2 in the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 15-24)):

<bullet> North Coast Ecoregion:
    Humboldt County--Freshwater Lagoon Spit, Humboldt Bay area, mouth 
of the Eel River, McNutt Gulch, and mouth of the Mattole River
    Marin County--Point Reyes National Seashore
<bullet> Central Coast Ecoregion:
    Monterey County--Monterey Peninsula
<bullet> South Coast Ecoregion:
    Santa Barbara County--Vandenberg SFB (located on part of the 
Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes)

    Of the known historical populations, four are considered 
extirpated, including the San Francisco population, the Point Pinos 
population in the Monterey area, and two populations north of the Mad 
River in Humboldt County. All currently extant populations were known 
at the time of listing and when the recovery plan was finalized (1992 
and 1998, respectively), with the exception of the Freshwater Lagoon 
population discovered in 2000, at the far northern extent of the 
species' range (see table, below). The total number of individuals 
across the range of the species reported in the recovery plan was 
300,000. However, sampling data collected at the Lanphere Dunes that 
same year yielded an estimate of more than one million plants for that 
subpopulation alone, which indicates the estimate in the recovery plan 
was substantially lower than the actual number of individuals (Pickart 
2018, pers. comm.).
    Current conditions and trend information (when available) are 
summarized below for the 13 extant populations (including the North 
Spit Humboldt Bay population that is comprised of 8 subpopulations and 
the largest proportion of plants throughout the species' range). 
Information about extirpated populations is also shown in the table, 
below. Additional information on current conditions of these 
populations, as well as information about the four extirpated 
populations, is found in section 7.0 of the SSA report (Service 2018, 
pp. 25-38).

  Table of Beach Layia's Historical and Current Populations, Subpopulations, Ownership, and Abundance Estimates, Based on the Best Available Scientific
                                                               and Commercial Information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                Most recent  abundance
                                                                                                                               estimates  (as of 2017,
            Population                Subpopulation             Status               Ownership             2017 Acres             unless  indicated
                                                                                                                                      otherwise)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         NORTH COAST ECOREGION (Humboldt County)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freshwater Lagoon Spit...........  ...................  Extant................  National Park        \1\ 3.................  469 \1\ (2021).
                                                                                 Service.
Mouth of Little River............  ...................  Extirpated \2\........  California State     0.....................  N/A.
                                                                                 Parks.
Mouth of Mad River...............  ...................  Extirpated \2\........  Humboldt County....  0.....................  N/A.
North Spit Humboldt Bay..........  Mad River Beach....  Extant................  Humboldt County,     unknown...............  unknown (2021).
                                                                                 Humboldt Bay
                                                                                 National Wildlife
                                                                                 Refuge (Refuge).
                                   Bair/Woll..........  Extant................  Refuge, Private....  \3\ 13................  unknown (2021)
                                   Lanphere Dunes.....  Extant................  Refuge.............  \3\ 33................  1.3 million \3\ (combined
                                                                                                                              with Ma-le'l North).
                                   Ma-le'l North......  Extant................  Refuge.............  \3\ 29................  1.3 million \3\ (combined
                                                                                                                              with Lanphere Dunes).
                                   Ma-le'l South......  Extant................  Bureau of Land       \3\ 48................  2.1 million \3\
                                                                                 Management (BLM).
                                   Manila North.......  Extant................  Friends of the       \3\ 82................  1.4 million \3\.
                                                                                 Dunes, Manila
                                                                                 Community Services
                                                                                 District.
                                   Manila South.......  Extant................  Private............  \3\ 47................  unknown (2021).
                                   Samoa/Eureka Dunes.  Extant................  BLM, City of Eureka  \3\ 49................  6.7 million \3\.
Elk River........................  ...................  Extant................  City of Eureka.....  \3\ 15................  468,000.
South Spit Humboldt Bay..........  ...................  Extant................  California           \3\ 83................  6.1 million \3\.
                                                                                 Department of Fish
                                                                                 and Wildlife
                                                                                 (CDFW), BLM.
North Spit Eel River.............  ...................  Extant................  CDFW...............  \3\ 37................  4.7 million \3\.
South Spit Eel River.............  ...................  Extant................  Wildlands            \3\ 1.5...............  11,307 \4\.
                                                                                 Conservancy.
McNutt Gulch.....................  ...................  Extant................  Private............  \5\ 1.................  unknown (2021).
Mouth of Mattole River...........  ...................  Extant................  BLM................  \2\ 27................  3.1 million \6\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          NORTH COAST ECOREGION (Marin County)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Reyes NS...................  ...................  Extant................  National Park        \7\ 146...............  2.7 million \7\.
                                                                                 Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     CENTRAL COAST ECOREGION (San Francisco County)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco....................  ...................  Extirpated............  ...................  0.....................  N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        CENTRAL COAST ECOREGION (Monterey County)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Pinos......................  ...................  Extirpated \8\........  City of Pacific      0.....................  Extirpated \3\.
                                                                                 Grove.

[[Page 18725]]

 
Asilomar State Beach.............  ...................  Extant................  California State     \9\ 0.17..............  \9\ 1,541.
                                                                                 Parks.
Indian Village Dunes.............  ...................  Extant................  Private............  \10\ 0.55.............  \11\ 199 (2018).
Signal Hill Dunes................  ...................  Extant................  Private............  \5\ 1.................  unknown (2021).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      SOUTH COAST ECOREGION (Santa Barbara County)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vandenberg SFB...................  ...................  Extant................  Department of        \12\ 2.8 (2019).......  \12\ 11,902 (2019).
                                                                                 Defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Census and mapping conducted by the National Park Service for both acreage (Julian 2017, pers. comm.) and abundance information (Julian 2021, pers.
  comm.).
\2\ Source is the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 2017.
\3\ Mapping and population estimate conducted by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 2017.
\4\ Census conducted by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (Goldsmith 2017, pers. obs.).
\5\ Actual amount of occupied habitat not determined; conservative estimate.
\6\ Estimate based on average density from monitoring data collected by BLM (Hassett 2017, pers. comm.).
\7\ Point Reyes NS, mapping from 2001-2003 and 2017 sampling conducted in Abbots Lagoon area (Parsons 2017, pers. comm.).
\8\ Presumed extirpated information by CNDDB 2017.
\9\ Mapping and census conducted by California State Parks (Gray 2017, pers. comm.).
\10\ Mapping conducted as part of a capstone project by a student at Monterey Bay State University (Johns 2009).
\11\ Estimate provided by consultant (Dorrell-Canepa 2018).
\12\ Mapping and acreage census conducted most recently in 2019 (ManTech SRS Technologies Inc. 2020, pp. 46-47).

Freshwater Lagoon Spit Population
    This is the northern-most population of beach layia, which was 
discovered during spring 2000, in northern Humboldt County at Redwood 
National Park, currently encompassing approximately 3 acres (ac) (1.2 
hectares (ha)) (Julian 2017, pers. comm.) and 469 plants (Julian 2021, 
pers. comm.). A census of the population has been conducted every year 
since 2000, and results indicate the population and individual patches 
fluctuate substantially, with a peak of 11,110 plants recorded in 2003, 
and as few as 263 plants in 2014 (Julian 2017, pers. comm.) (see figure 
14 in the SSA report). The overall trend of this population is 
declining, likely due to drought conditions and high cover of native 
grasses (e.g., red fescue (Festuca rubra)) adversely affecting its 
resource needs (i.e., reduction of area of sparse vegetative cover and 
sunlight).
North Spit Humboldt Bay Population
    Mad River Beach Subpopulation: The Mad River Beach subpopulation is 
the northern-most subpopulation (one of eight) within the North Spit 
Humboldt Bay population (hereafter referred to as ``North Spit''). 
There is little information available for this subpopulation, which 
resides on Humboldt County-owned land south of the mouth of the Mad 
River, as well as the nearby Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge-
owned Long parcel. Beach layia is fairly abundant and widely 
distributed within the dune mat habitat in this area (Goldsmith 2018, 
pers. obs.). However, the vegetation community is dominated by 
invasive, nonnative species including European beachgrass (Ammophila 
arenaria), annual grasses (ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and quaking 
grass (Briza maxima)), and yellow bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus) 
(Goldsmith 2018, pers. obs.). The subpopulation is conservatively 
estimated to encompass approximately 1 ac (0.4 ha), although abundance, 
distribution, and trend information is unknown. Suitable habitat is 
limited due to overstabilization caused by a heavy invasion of 
invasive, nonnative species. No efforts to restore ecosystem function 
are currently under way, nor does the County or Refuge have any 
restoration planned at this time.
    Bair/Woll Subpopulation: This subpopulation occurs on the Refuge-
owned Bair parcel and privately owned Woll parcel; acquisition and 
restoration of the entire subpopulation is a high priority for the 
Refuge (Refuge 2013, p. 2). The majority of the area is dominated by 
nonnative, invasive species including European beachgrass, iceplant 
(Carpobrotus edulis and C. chilensis), yellow bush lupine, and annual 
grasses (Pickart 2018, pers. comm.). To date, restoration has occurred 
on the southwest corner of the Bair parcel. The subpopulation 
encompasses approximately 13 ac (5.3 ha), although abundance and trend 
information, and adequacy of resource needs--beyond the visible 
reduction of sparse vegetative cover--are unknown.
    Lanphere Dunes Subpopulation: This subpopulation occurs on the 
Lanphere Dunes Unit of the Refuge and encompasses a conservative 
estimate of approximately 33 ac (13 ha) (Service 2017, unpublished 
data). Restoration has been underway since the 1980s, including removal 
of invasive plants in an effort to restore ecosystem function. Ongoing 
nonnative species removal/maintenance appears necessary in this area to 
ensure that beach layia's resource needs are met. Over the years, this 
population of beach layia has responded positively to restoration 
actions and negatively to lack of rainfall in the winter months (see 
figure 15 in the SSA report). In 2017, abundance was estimated for both 
Lanphere Dunes and Ma-le'l North (see below) at approximately 1 million 
individual plants (Pickart 2017, pers. comm.).
    Ma-le'l North Subpopulation: This subpopulation resides directly 
south of the Lanphere Dunes on the Ma-le'l North Dunes Unit of the 
Refuge and comprises the northern end of the Ma-le'l Cooperative 
Management Area (CMA), the southern portion of which is cooperatively 
owned/managed by BLM (see Ma-le'l South Subpopulation, below). 
Nonnative plants (i.e., European beachgrass, annual grasses, iceplant, 
and yellow bush lupine) require continued control to maintain the open/
sparse vegetative cover and adequate sunlight needs that beach layia 
relies on. The total subpopulation area is approximately 29 ac (11.7 
ha) (Service 2017, unpublished data).
    Ma-le'l South Subpopulation: Extending immediately south of the Ma-
le'l North subpopulation, the Ma-le'l South subpopulation is 
approximately 48 ac (19.4 ha), had an estimate of approximately 2 
million individuals in 2017, and is owned/managed by BLM. Restoration 
has produced positive results in favor of beach layia persistence, 
although periodic

[[Page 18726]]

maintenance of nonnative, invasive plants is necessary (Wheeler 2017, 
pers. comm.) to ensure the open/sparse vegetative cover resource need 
that beach layia relies on. Additionally, the best available data 
indicate this subpopulation is less abundant during drought years 
(2012-2015), followed by a positive spike in abundance following a 
winter of substantial rainfall (Wheeler 2017, pers. comm.) (see also 
figure 16 in the SSA report). The results of this subpopulation's 
monitoring (i.e., that beach layia is less abundant during drought 
years and more abundant following winters with heavy rainfall) are 
likely representative of the species across its entire range, based on 
the best available data to date regarding the species' ecology and 
life-history characteristics.
    Manila North Subpopulation: This subpopulation encompasses two 
areas within close proximity to each other on lands owned/managed by 
the Manila Community Services District (CSD) and the nonprofit 
organization known as Friends of the Dunes. The total estimated 
subpopulation (both areas) was approximately 1.4 million individuals in 
2017, and occupies approximately 82 ac (33 ha). Efforts have been made 
to remove nonnative, invasive species, but the efforts have not been 
consistent and many areas have been re-invaded. Active management is 
needed to ensure the availability of open/sparse vegetative cover and 
adequate sunlight needs that beach layia relies on.
    Manila South Subpopulation: This subpopulation is immediately south 
of the Manila North subpopulation but resides on private property, 
encompassing approximately 47 ac (19 ha) as reported most recently in 
2017 (Service 2017, unpublished data). The area is dominated with 
nonnative, invasive European beachgrass, iceplant, and annual grasses. 
Abundance and trend information, and adequacy of resource needs--beyond 
the visible reduction of area of sparse vegetative cover--are unknown.
    Samoa/Eureka Dunes Subpopulation: This subpopulation is the 
southern extent/limit of the North Spit (Humboldt Bay) population, 
encompassing approximately 49 ac (20 ha) on lands owned/managed by both 
BLM and the City of Eureka, and was estimated to include more than 6 
million individuals in 2017. The BLM lands occupied by the species are 
managed to provide both an Endangered Species Protection Area and an 
open OHV use area. The remainder of the City's occupied habitat 
includes an additional OHV use area, an industrial zoned area 
containing an operational airport facility, and an 84-ac (34-ha) parcel 
under conservation easement known as the Eureka Dunes Protected Area 
held by the Center for Natural Lands Management. Some of this 
subpopulation has been restored; however, nonnative, invasive species 
continue to envelop open areas where beach layia plants occur. Some 
monitoring data recently available indicate the protected areas harbor 
a higher density of beach layia compared to the OHV area, including 
increased density of beach layia over the past 2 years, which 
correlates with increased precipitation over this same time frame (BLM 
2016b). Similar to the monitoring results discussed for the Ma-le'l 
South subpopulation, above, the results of this subpopulation's 
monitoring (i.e., beach layia occurring at higher densities in the 
restored, protected areas compared to heavily impacted OHV areas, and 
high densities of beach layia plants correlating with years that have 
heavy annual rainfall) are likely representative of the species across 
its entire range, based on the best available data to date regarding 
the species' ecology and life-history characteristics.
Elk River Population
    This population is owned and managed by the City of Eureka on the 
east shore of Humboldt Bay at the mouth of Elk River (see figure 8 in 
the SSA report). The spit is approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) long by up 
to 0.1 mi (0.16 km) wide, and beach layia occupies approximately 15 ac 
(6 ha) and was estimated to include 468,000 individuals in 2017 
(Service 2017, unpublished data). Trend information is not available, 
although the most recent survey in 2017 indicates the area is dominated 
by nonnative, invasive European beachgrass (Goldsmith 2017, pers. 
obs.).
South Spit Humboldt Bay Population
    The 5-mi (8-km) stretch of dune that supports beach layia extends 
south from Humboldt Bay's entrance to the base of Table Bluff (see 
figure 8 in the SSA report). The majority of this population is owned 
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as the Mike 
Thompson Wildlife Area, and the remainder is owned by BLM, which also 
manages the entire population (BLM 2014b, p. 3). The best available 
information suggests this population has increased in size since 2003, 
currently encompassing 83 ac (34 ha) with a population estimate of 
approximately 6 million plants (Service 2017, unpublished data). The 
steady increase in occupied beach layia habitat over time is due to the 
continued restoration effort to remove nonnative, invasive European 
beachgrass and iceplant (BLM 2014b, p. 7; Wheeler 2017, pers. comm.). 
Additionally, monitoring data available from two plots established in 
2008 indicate increased density of beach layia following restoration, 
decreased density during recent drought years, and a subsequent 
increased density with high levels of annual precipitation (BLM 2014b, 
p. 15). These monitoring data suggest that beach layia density 
increases dramatically following restoration, that density settles to a 
more moderate level as native plants fill in the previously invaded 
habitat, and that density is also strongly correlated to rainfall.
North Spit Eel River Population
    Located immediately south of the South Spit Humboldt Bay 
population, this population encompasses 37 ac (15 ha) of conserved 
lands within the CDFW's Eel River Wildlife Area and was estimated to 
include 4.7 million individuals in 2017 (Service 2017, unpublished 
data). The area is dominated by nonnative, invasive species including 
European beachgrass, iceplant, yellow bush lupine, and annual grasses. 
Trend information and adequacy of resource needs--beyond the visible 
reduction of area of sparse vegetative cover--are unknown.
South Spit Eel River Population
    On the south side of the Eel River mouth, this population occurs on 
an area owned and managed by the Wildlands Conservancy, encompassing 
approximately 1.5 ac (0.6 ha) of occupied beach layia habitat and 
11,307 plants as recorded in 2017 (Service 2017, unpublished data). It 
is likely that beach layia occurs in other areas of the property, 
although additional survey data do not yet exist. The area harbors 
nonnative, invasive European beachgrass that is reducing the 
availability of open sandy areas for beach layia to persist.
McNutt Gulch Population
    This population was discovered in 1987, on private property near 
the mouth of McNutt Gulch. Varied numbers of plants have been recorded, 
ranging from 200 to 500 plants (CNDDB 2017; Imper 2018, pers. comm.), 
although a complete survey has not yet occurred. The occupied area is 
estimated to be less than 1 ac (0.4 ha) (Imper 2018, pers. comm.). A 
comparison of current and historical aerial photos indicate 
encroachment of European beachgrass. At this time, there

[[Page 18727]]

is no beach layia trend information available.
Mouth of Mattole River Population
    This is the southern extent of the known beach layia populations 
within Humboldt County. This population occupies approximately 27 ac 
(11 ha) within part of the King Range National Conservation Area and 
was estimated to include 3.1 million individuals in 2017 (Hassett 2017, 
pers. comm.). The area is owned and managed by BLM and is located 35 mi 
(56 km) south of the entrance to Humboldt Bay. Monitoring data 
available from 2017 indicate this population had a spike in abundance 
that year compared to the previous year (estimated to be 725,000 
individuals) that correlates to an increase in precipitation (Hassett 
2017, pers. comm.).
Point Reyes Population
    The next known population of beach layia to the south is located in 
Marin County, 200 mi (322 km) south of Humboldt Bay, in the dunes 
between Kehoe Beach Dunes and the Point Reyes lighthouse at Point Reyes 
(Service 1998, p. 44; figure 11 in the SSA report). This large dune 
system contains approximately 146 ac (59 ha) of dunes occupied by beach 
layia within 14 geographically concentrated areas, based on mapping 
conducted since 2001 (Point Reyes 2010, unpaginated). However, some of 
those areas were no longer occupied in 2017 (Goldsmith 2017, pers. 
obs.). The population was estimated to be 2.7 million in 2017, although 
varying levels of survey intensity over the years hamper our ability to 
track population trends (Parsons 2017, pers. comm.). However, sampling 
conducted from 2015-2017 in the Abbots Lagoon area, which includes 
recently restored areas, estimate increasing abundance (Parsons 2017, 
pers. comm.), which also correlates with an increase in precipitation. 
Restoration is ongoing and includes removal of nonnative, invasive 
European beachgrass and iceplant, which occur at various densities 
throughout the 14 subpopulations (Parsons 2017, pers. comm.).
Asilomar State Beach Population
    The northern-most extant population in Monterey County was 
previously thought to be extirpated but was rediscovered in 1990 
(Service 1998, p. 44). Since the time of the first survey effort in 
1994, in which 192 plants were found, subsequent survey efforts found 
the abundance to remain relatively static within the same geographical 
footprint (Service 2011, p. 22; Gray 2017, pers. comm.). In 2017, the 
occupied beach layia habitat consisted of a sparse layer of native dune 
mat vegetation with no presence of nonnative, invasive species 
(Dorrell-Canepa 2017, pers. comm.), and the population appears 
consistently present when climate conditions are favorable (Gray 2018, 
p. 3). Monitoring is ongoing. Counts of this population from 2017 total 
1,541 plants within 0.17 ac (688 square meters) (Gray 2017, pers. 
comm.); this 2017 count is the highest on record for this population, 
possibly correlated with the high amount of rainfall during the 
germination period. Additional survey results include total counts of 
287 plants in 2019, 442 plants in 2020, and 54 plants in 2021 (Allen 
2021, pers. comm.), noting the lower counts since 2000 coincide with 
drought conditions. Overall, this population appears to be stable given 
its consistent year-to-year presence and relative protection from 
threats, including accounting for the expected lower count numbers 
detected during drought conditions/years.
Indian Village Dunes Population
    The second of three populations in Monterey County, the Indian 
Village Dunes population occurs on restored dune habitat owned by the 
Pebble Beach Company. The most recent survey efforts for this 
population include information for 2009 (1,783 plants), 2017 (1,200 
plants), and 2018 (199 plants), the latter of which is 83 percent lower 
plant abundance than what was expressed during the 2017 monitoring 
efforts (Dorrell-Canepa 2018, pers. comm.). The overall area where the 
species occurs is approximately 0.55 ac (0.2 ha) (Johns 2009, entire). 
Drought conditions existed during 2018, which may have contributed to a 
lower abundance during that year; however, with the absence of long 
term data, correlations with covariates related to population trends 
are not possible to make with certainty. No additional information on 
distribution and abundance trends is available from 2019 to present. 
This area is preserved through a conservation easement, although there 
is no management plan, funding, or requirement for additional 
monitoring or restoration work. Given the unknowns surrounding the 
population's current abundance, additional surveys and possibly 
recovery efforts are warranted.
Signal Hill Dunes Population
    This southern-most population within Monterey County is located 
less than 1 mi (1.6 km) south of the Indian Village Dunes population 
and is also owned by Pebble Beach Company. No recent survey information 
exists. The best available information is from a 2001 survey effort 
indicating plants occurring in five semi-isolated areas (Zander 
Associates 2001, p. 7), likely encompassing less than 1 ac (0.4 ha). No 
information is known regarding adequacy of the area to meet the 
species' resource needs.
Vandenberg SFB Population
    The southern-most population of beach layia occurs on Vandenberg 
SFB in Santa Barbara County, separated by a distance of approximately 
235 mi (378 km) from the Signal Hill Dunes population. This area 
receives less annual rainfall than the Central and North Coast 
Ecoregions (i.e., 14 in (36 cm) as compared to 20 in (51 cm) and 38 in 
(96 cm), respectively) (NOAA 2017). Although surveys do not occur 
annually, information is available for 2012, 2016, 2017, and 2019 for 
all known occupied habitat. The most recent (2019) census includes both 
acreage occupied and abundance information, resulting in 2.8 ac (1.1 
ha) and 11,902 individual plants, indicating a 43 percent increase in 
population abundance compared to 2017 survey information (ManTech SRS 
Technologies, Inc. 2020, pp. 46-47). Due to varying levels of survey 
effort, there is no beach layia population trend information for this 
entire population, although the number of beach layia within a 
restoration area on the south side of the Vandenberg SFB demonstrates 
wide fluctuations in population size from year to year, which is often 
correlated to the amount of rainfall (see table 4 in the SSA report). 
Although restoration of beach layia habitat on Vandenberg SFB has 
occurred and is expected to continue into the future, it is highly 
stabilized due to the presence of nonnative, invasive species, 
including iceplant, European beachgrass, and veldt grass (Ehrharta 
erecta) (Schneider and Calloway 2017, p. 14; ManTech SRS Technologies, 
Inc. 2020, p. 49), thus reducing the open sandy areas that beach layia 
relies on.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing 
species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed status. 
``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species or 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate 
population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when

[[Page 18728]]

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act defines an ``endangered species'' 
as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a 
species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.
    The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' because of any of 
the following 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.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We must consider these same five factors in downlisting a species 
from endangered to threatened. Under our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.11(c) and (d), we may downlist a species if, after a review of the 
species' status, the best available scientific and commercial data 
indicate that the species no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered species, but that it meets the definition of a threatened 
species.
    For the purposes of this analysis, we evaluate whether or not beach 
layia meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species,'' based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available. We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general 
to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to 
negatively affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' 
includes actions or conditions that directly affect individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--with regard to those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species and then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats with regard to those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or 
a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.
    In our determination, we correlate the threats acting on the 
species to the factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Our analysis 
includes examining: (1) The threats at the time of listing in 1992 (or 
if not present at the time of listing, the status of the threat when 
first detected); (2) conservation actions that have been implemented to 
meet the downlisting criteria (see also Recovery and Recovery Plan 
Implementation, below) or that otherwise mitigate the threat; (3) the 
current level of impact that each threat may have on the species or its 
habitat; and (4) the likely future impact of threats on beach layia.
    As stated previously, at the time of listing (57 FR 27848; June 22, 
1992), we determined that human-induced disturbances (particularly OHV 
activity, but also other disturbances from agriculture, pedestrians, 
development, etc.) were significant threats to beach layia, resulting 
in ongoing negative population or rangewide impacts; thus, we 
determined that the best available information indicated that the 
species was in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Since 
that time, these activities have been significantly reduced, especially 
OHV activity, with records of the species subsequently demonstrating 
positive responses in abundance. Additionally, significant areas have 
been set aside as preserves, conservation areas, and conservation 
easements.
    This current analysis considers the beneficial influences on beach 
layia, as well as the potential risk factors (i.e., threats) that are 
either remaining or new and could be affecting beach layia now or in 
the future. In this rule, we will discuss in detail only those factors 
that could meaningfully impact the status of the species. The primary 
risk factors affecting beach layia are the present and threatened 
modification or destruction of its habitat from overstabilization/
competition with invasive species (Factor A from the Act), modification 
of its habitat from changing climate conditions (Factor E), 
modification of its habitat from human-influenced erosion/high level of 
disturbance (e.g., recreation) (Factor A), and modification of its 
habitat from vertical land movement/shoreline erosion (i.e., varying 
levels of uplift and subsidence, as described below) (Factor A). 
Additional threats to the species include development (Factor A) and 
herbivory/disease (Factor C); however, our analysis shows that while 
these threats may be impacting individual beach layia plants, they are 
not having species-wide impacts. For a full description of all 
identified threats, refer to chapter 8 of the SSA report (Service 2018, 
pp. 38-48).

Overstabilization/Competition With Invasive Species

    Areas described as overstabilized in this document (and discussed 
in detail

[[Page 18729]]

in section 8.2.1 of the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 41-43)) have high 
vegetation cover and restricted sand movement either due to presence of 
nonnative, invasive species or presence of species (native or 
nonnative) that move in after an area is stabilized by invasive 
species. Overstabilization caused by invasive species, as defined here, 
is a different ecological process from natural succession in which 
native vegetation changes over time from the semi-stable dune mat 
community to more stabilized communities. Both overstabilization and 
natural succession have a negative impact on the abundance of beach 
layia because the species requires open sand to colonize an area (see 
Ecology, Habitat, and Resource Needs of Beach Layia, above). At this 
time, the best available information indicates that large portions of 
the range of beach layia have been made unsuitable by overstabilization 
and competition with both native and nonnative, invasive species 
(Service 2017, pp. 41-43). However, dune systems that are naturally 
succeeding often still contain areas of semi-stable dunes--although 
they may shift over time--that are suitable for beach layia.
    One population--the Freshwater Lagoon Spit--is the only beach layia 
population that is currently impacted by stabilization caused by native 
species, i.e., red fescue (Samuels 2017, pers. comm.). No measures are 
in place to address the stabilization effects.
    The remainder of beach layia's range is subject to past 
introduction and invasion of its habitat by a variety of nonnative, 
invasive plant species (Service 1998, p. 45), which is one reason why 
the species was listed as an endangered species (57 FR 27848; June 22, 
1992). These nonnative species adversely affect the long-term viability 
of coastal dune plants, including the entire distribution of beach 
layia (with the exception of the Freshwater Lagoon Spit population, as 
described above), through either direct competition for space (56 FR 
12318, March 22, 1991, p. 12323); stabilization of the dunes (56 FR 
12318, March 22, 1991, p. 12318); or, in some cases, enrichment of the 
soils, which then stimulate invasion by other aggressive species (Maron 
and Connors 1996, p. 309; Pickart et al. 1998, pp. 59-68). Nonnative, 
invasive species are currently present at all populations throughout 
the species' range, although to a lesser degree at the Lanphere Dunes, 
Ma-le'l North, and Ma-le'l South subpopulations; the Mouth of Mattole 
River population; and Asilomar State Beach and Indian Village Dunes 
populations due to restoration activities.
    The most common invasive species (European beachgrass, iceplant, 
yellow bush lupine, and ripgut brome) in dune systems throughout the 
range of beach layia are described in section 8.2.1.1 of the SSA report 
(Service 2018, pp. 42-43). The high level of invasion throughout the 
range of beach layia suggests these taxa will continue to invade beach 
layia habitat (i.e., invasive plants occur at varying densities within 
and adjacent to all extant populations), necessitating routine and 
long-term management actions. Many of the invasive plants have been 
mapped within the various dune systems occupied by beach layia (Johns 
2009, p. 24; Point Reyes 2015, p. i; Mantech SRS Technologies 2018, p. 
1), and there have been efforts for their removal or control (Service 
2011, p. 10; Point Reyes 2015, p. 105; Mantech SRS Technologies 2018, 
p. 1). However, much potentially suitable habitat for beach layia 
remains to be restored, as identified in the 1992 recovery plan (i.e., 
the portion of the species' range where the majority of occurrences are 
including the Mouth of the Mad River, the greater part of the North and 
South Spits of Humboldt Bay, Elk River Spit, the North and South Spits 
of the Eel River, McNutt Gulch, as well as Point Reyes, Signal Hill 
Dunes, and Vandenberg SFB (recovery criterion 2, see section 11.0 in 
the SSA report)), in addition to routine maintenance to control this 
threat into the future.
    Overall, overstabilization and competition with native or 
nonnative, invasive species are reducing the availability of sandy 
soils with sparse vegetative cover, causing beach layia throughout its 
range to compete for open sandy space, sunlight, and rainfall during 
its winter germination period. Efforts at some locations to remove 
invasive species (such as, but not limited to, European beachgrass, 
iceplant, yellow bush lupine, and ripgut brome) that are adversely 
affecting resources needed by beach layia are reducing these negative 
influences and thus have improved the species' current resiliency at 
many populations. However, the ability of land managers to continue 
manage the ongoing threat of invasive species into the future is 
uncertain.

Changing Climate Conditions

    Changes in weather patterns have been observed in recent years and 
are predicted to continue (Frankson et al. 2017, p. 1). Changes can 
include extreme events such as multi-year droughts or heavy rain events 
(Frankson et al. 2017, pp. 2-5). All of these have the potential to 
remove, reduce, and degrade habitat, as well as remove individual 
plants, reduce germination and survival rates, and reduce fecundity. 
The best available scientific and commercial information at this time 
does not indicate how historical changes in climate may have affected 
beach layia, although recent drought conditions have had a negative 
impact on population size (BLM 2016a, p. 6; ManTech SRS Technologies 
2016, p. 29).
    The best available information indicates that recent drought 
conditions (2012-2016, 2018, 2020, and currently in 2021) negatively 
influence the abundance of beach layia (e.g., lack of rainfall for 
germination, reduced fecundity, desiccation during dry periods in the 
growing season) across the species' range (e.g., BLM 2016a, p. 6; BLM 
2014b, p. 16; Pickart 2017, pers. comm.; Gray 2017, pers. comm.; 
ManTech SRS Technologies 2018, p. 9). Following the 2012-2016 drought 
period, a subsequent increase in abundance was seen in 2017, 
corresponding with the increase in rainfall at the end of this multi-
year drought period, indicating the seedbank for the species has some 
ability to withstand multi-year droughts. However, at this point in 
time, the full longevity of the seedbank is unknown; therefore, it is 
impossible to predict whether the species could withstand even longer 
drought periods or whether drought conditions could reach a point at 
which the seedbank would no longer be viable. All that can be 
reasonably concluded from the available information is that multi-year 
droughts have a negative effect on beach layia abundance, reducing 
above-ground vegetative growth, and that the seedbank for the species 
appears to be able to withstand at least 4 years of consecutive drought 
and then regenerate new vegetative growth once more normal rainfall 
patterns return (noting a tendency for the species to experience a 
spike in abundance following a drought).
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states it is 
likely that the intensity and duration of droughts will increase on a 
regional to global scale (IPCC 2014, p. 53). We used the California 
Climate and Hydrology Change Graphs, a graphing tool that presents 
climate and hydrology data from the California Basin Characterization 
Model (BCM) dataset (Flint et al. 2013, entire), to analyze the 
potential impact of drought on beach layia in the future. Four future 
climate scenarios demonstrate a range of precipitation and temperatures 
projected by the 18 scenarios available from the BCM. We chose to use 
the

[[Page 18730]]

climatic water deficit calculations because they take into account 
changes in air temperature, solar radiation, and evapotranspiration, 
and can be used as an estimate of drought stress on plants (Stephenson 
1998, p. 857).
    There are large uncertainties with respect to future precipitation 
levels; some scenarios predict a hot dry future, while others predict a 
hot wet future. While climatic water deficit magnitudes vary across the 
models, the trends are consistent in that all projections indicate 
increasing values. Climatic water deficit values, both historical 
(1931-2010) and projected (2021-2050), are higher in watersheds in the 
Central and South Coast Ecoregions. The South Coast Ecoregion has the 
highest values and is therefore considered to be the most vulnerable to 
stress caused by drought, followed by the Central Coast Ecoregion, and 
then the Point Reyes population at the southern end of the North Coast 
Ecoregion. The three watersheds in Humboldt County (which encompass all 
of the North Coast Ecoregion populations except Point Reyes) are least 
likely to be stressed by drought, both currently and into the future, 
but the trend in climatic water deficit is still increasing. See 
section 8.2.2.1 of the SSA report for additional discussion regarding 
impacts associated with drought.
    While no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the potential 
for drought alone to result in permanent loss of beach layia 
populations, a compounding factor with changing climate conditions is 
the relationship to invasive plant species. Many of the invasive 
species that negatively affect beach layia or its habitat, such as 
European beachgrass and iceplant, are drought tolerant (Hertling and 
Lubke 2000, pp. 522-524; Hilton et al. 2005, pp. 175-185; Earnshaw et 
al. 1987, pp. 421-432). During a multi-year drought, it is possible 
that invasive species could persist and spread into areas where beach 
layia declined, resulting in less open space habitat for germination of 
beach layia when a sufficient amount of rainfall returns (assuming the 
seedbank survives).
    The high level of abundance of beach layia in 2017 suggests that 
the potential for invasive species to take over habitat and exclude 
beach layia regeneration is not a significant threat, at least for 
drought periods up to 4 years in duration. However, the likelihood of 
the increased duration and intensity of drought into the future 
increases the potential for this outcome, which could be particularly 
problematic for those populations in the Central and South Coast 
Ecoregions.
    In addition to drought, rising sea levels caused by changing 
climate conditions can lead to removal or reduction of habitat, and the 
removal of individual plants, seedbanks, and whole populations. 
However, an analysis conducted using representative concentration 
pathway (RCP) 8.5 and local sea level rise projections for 2050 based 
on the methodology developed by Kopp et al. (2014, pp. 384-393) as 
presented in Rising Seas in California (Griggs 2017, entire) suggests 
that rising seas are not likely to significantly influence beach layia 
into the foreseeable future, and it is unknown how changes in sea 
levels may have affected the species in the past. Likewise, projections 
for the lower emission scenario indicate that rising seas under RCP 4.5 
are not likely to negatively influence beach layia (Griggs 2017, 
entire). For more information on the analysis conducted on the effects 
of sea level rise, please refer to section 10.3.2 of the SSA (Service 
2017, pp. 52-58).

Erosion/High Level of Disturbance

    Erosion of soil in a dune system can be caused by many factors, and 
any form of erosion or heavy soil disturbance can result in the removal 
of beach layia habitat, individual plants, and seedbank. Erosion and 
disturbance of beach layia habitat discussed in this document is 
associated with high levels of disturbance caused by pedestrian, 
equestrian, OHV, and grazing activity.
    First, the best available information indicates that trampling from 
both pedestrian and equestrian activities occur at insignificant levels 
at most populations throughout beach layia's range, with the possible 
exception of the Signal Hill Dunes population on the Monterey Peninsula 
(Service 2011, p. 11), although that current level of impact is 
unknown. Beach layia has a strong preference for moderately disturbed 
habitat adjacent to roads and trails (whether pedestrian or equestrian) 
in what otherwise would be unoccupied habitat (Service 2011, p. 11). 
Dispersed equestrian use has been allowed at the South Spit Humboldt 
Bay population since BLM began management of the area in 2002, and 
beach layia abundance has remained high, suggesting that dispersed 
equestrian use, at least where large areas of occupied habitat are 
concerned, is compatible with large populations (Wheeler 2017, pers. 
comm.).
    Second, OHV activity within beach layia habitat across the species' 
range is significantly reduced since the time of listing. Most occupied 
habitat is restricted from OHV use with the exception of five 
populations in Humboldt County. Beach layia abundance is lower within 
riding areas as compared to preserved areas that are closed to OHV use 
and managed to reduce threats to the species (BLM 2016a; BLM 2016b; 
Hassett 2017, pers. comm.; see also figure 17 in the SSA report). 
Additionally, within the OHV riding area, beach layia is restricted to 
the edges of trails, and the remainder of the habitat is overstabilized 
and dominated by invasive vegetation. It is possible that the higher 
beach layia abundance in the protected areas of the study could have 
more to do with invasive species management than eliminating the direct 
impacts of OHV use (Wheeler 2017, pers. comm.).
    Finally, livestock trampling was identified as a threat when beach 
layia was listed (57 FR 27848; June 22, 1992). Livestock trampling 
previously occurred at the Mouth of Mattole River population, but 
fencing was replaced in 1997, thereby eliminating this threat (BLM 
2014a, p. 5). Additionally, livestock were removed from the South Spit 
Eel River population that occurs on the Wildlands Conservancy Preserve 
(Allee 2018, pers. comm.). At this time, the only populations that are 
exposed to livestock are the McNutt Gulch population (Imper 2018, pers. 
comm.) and some portions of the Point Reyes population (Parsons 2018, 
pers. comm.). Observations made at Point Reyes suggest that livestock 
trampling is negatively impacting portions of the population there 
(Goldsmith 2018, personal observation). The current status of the 
McNutt Gulch population is unknown.
    Overall, the best available scientific and commercial information 
suggests that human-induced disturbances are not resulting in 
significant, negative, population-wide or rangewide impacts given most 
beach layia habitat is under some level of protection and responds well 
to slight disturbance. However, some risk to the species' viability 
remains for some populations in the North Coast Ecoregion because of 
trampling or crushing of individuals plants.

Vertical Land Movement/Shoreline Erosion

    Uplift or subduction (i.e., the geological process that occurs at 
convergent boundaries of tectonic plates where one plate moves under 
another and is forced to sink due to gravity into the mantle) both 
during and between seismic events can affect whether a beach/shoreline 
is prograding (i.e., advancing toward the sea as a result of the 
accumulation of waterborne

[[Page 18731]]

sediment) or eroding. Vertical land movement (VLM) is site-specific and 
is influenced by a number of factors. Direction and magnitude differ 
depending on location, although most areas around Humboldt Bay, 
including areas near beach layia habitat, are subsiding (Patton et al. 
2017, pp. 26-27). The San Andreas Fault, which runs along the eastern 
edge of Point Reyes and runs parallel to the Monterey Peninsula, 
regularly experiences plate movements. Removal or reduction of both 
habitat and individual plants can be caused by sea level rise 
associated with subduction while uplift may counterbalance those 
effects. Sudden movements associated with earthquakes can cause 
tsunamis, which have the potential to remove habitat and whole 
populations in one event.
    The portion of shoreline where beach layia occurs at Point Reyes 
has a high to very high vulnerability index (Pendleton et al. 2005, pp. 
3, 15), indicating that this population is subject to removal of 
occupied habitat caused by shoreline erosion. Similarly, the Monterey 
coastline where beach layia occurs has been shaped by varying levels of 
uplift and subsidence (Revell Coastal 2016, p. 2-1). The dunes at 
Asilomar are less vulnerable to erosion compared to those on the 
northern portion of the peninsula (EMC Planning Group 2015, figure 5). 
The best available information does not suggest any current or 
historical VLM or shoreline erosion for the Monterey Peninsula; thus, 
areas where beach layia occur appear relatively safe. No VLM/shoreline 
erosion information is available for Vandenberg SFB. While some 
populations are more at risk than others to lose habitat via VLM based 
on historical data, coastal dune habitat will always be threatened by 
the potential loss of large expanses of habitat caused by subduction 
events or tsunami.
    As with many ecosystems, dunes often undergo periods of cyclic 
stabilization and rejuvenation (Pickart and Sawyer 1998, p. 4). 
Rejuvenation events can be the result of changes in relative sea level, 
which in turn are attributed, at least in the past, to tectonic 
activity, including tsunamis (such as the following, as cited in 
Pickart and Sawyer 1998: Vick 1988, Pacific Watershed Associates 1991, 
Clarke and Carver 1992, and Komar and Shih 1993). Both uplift and 
subsidence can theoretically trigger reactivation of dunes, with the 
former potentially building or expanding dunes through increased 
sediment supply, while the latter can destroy dunes through increased 
wave action or limit the expansion of new dunes (Pickart and Sawyer 
1998, p. 4). The southern end of the North Spit Humboldt Bay population 
and the South Spit Eel River population are particularly vulnerable to 
shoreline erosion (McDonald 2017, pp. 10-13).

Current Condition

    The estimated abundance of beach layia is currently 30 million 
plants and the estimated occupied habitat is approximately 595 ac (240 
ha). This is an increase of approximately 28 percent for abundance and 
an increase of approximately 65 percent for occupied habitat since the 
2017 5-year review (Service 2011, entire).
    All of the threats discussed above have the potential to negatively 
influence the resiliency of beach layia populations; however, the 
threat that currently has the greatest negative impact on populations 
or the species rangewide is overstabilization/competition with invasive 
species. This threat reduces abundance of beach layia more than any 
other and has the potential to have significant negative impacts to 
populations across the range of the species by reducing the amount of 
open sandy areas with sparse vegetation that it needs. Although habitat 
has been restored for some populations, the threat of invasive species 
expanding their presence throughout the species' range is always 
present, especially because most restored sites are near currently 
invaded areas, and has the potential to increase if changing climate 
conditions result in longer duration and higher intensity multi-year 
droughts. Efforts to remove nonnative or native, invasive species and 
reverse the effects of overstabilization are ongoing throughout the 
species' range (Martinez et al. 2013, p. 159; BLM 2014b, p. 17; ManTech 
SRS Technologies 2016, p. 1; California Department of Parks and 
Recreation (CDPR) 2004, p. 3-14). However, these efforts are time 
consuming and costly. Some current management plans include restoration 
for some populations; however, many populations have no plans for 
restoration, and funding into the future is determined on an annual 
budgetary basis by CDPR and Vandenberg SFB. Thus, this threat is not 
considered to be causing a significant negative influence across the 
entire range of beach layia at this time, but is reasonably likely to 
in the foreseeable future.
    Uncertainties regarding the species' ecology and current impacts 
(or level of impacts) to beach layia or its habitat include (but are 
not limited to): Defined timelines for implementation of restoration 
and ongoing control of nonnative, invasive species; limiting factors 
for the populations in Monterey County; seedbank longevity; and the 
optimal disturbance regime to maximize recovery efforts (see also 
section 9.1.2 in the SSA report (Service 2018, p. 50)).

Future Condition Projections

    For the purpose of this rule, we define viability as the ability of 
the species to sustain populations in the wild over time. This 
discussion explains how the stressors associated with 
overstabilization/competition with invasive species, changing climate 
conditions, erosion/high level of disturbance (e.g., recreation), and 
vertical land movement/shoreline erosion will influence resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation for beach layia throughout its current 
known range using the most likely plausible scenario. The future 
timeframes evaluated include a range of times that cover a variety of 
management plans that are expected to last the next 10 to 20 years and 
predictions for local sea level rise in the future through the year 
2050. Thus, foreseeable future for this analysis is a range from 
approximately 15 to 30 years from now.
    Suitable occupied and unoccupied habitat is limited to coastal dune 
systems that are subject to modification or destruction by 
overstabilization/competition with nonnative and native invasive 
species, changing climate conditions (which can result in drought and 
sea level rise), erosion from various disturbance activities (e.g., 
recreation), and VLM/shoreline erosion (see section 6.2 in the SSA 
report (Service 2018, pp. 14-24)). Significant habitat modification in 
any portion of beach layia's range could lead to reduced population 
size, growth rate, and habitat quality for the affected population(s), 
thus resulting in a higher risk level for the species' viability into 
the future. Although the threats described above are generally spread 
throughout the species' range, the best available data indicate that 
the most vulnerable populations, given current and potential future 
impacts to availability of sparsely vegetated native dune mat habitat 
subject to periodic disturbance during the dormant season, include:
    <bullet> North Coast Ecoregion--Freshwater Lagoon Spit, portions of 
North Spit Humboldt Bay (including the Mad River Beach, Bair/Woll, 
Manila South, and Samoa/Eureka Dunes subpopulations), portions of South 
Spit Humboldt Bay, Elk River, North Spit Eel River, South Spit Eel 
River, McNutt Gulch, and unrestored portions of Point Reyes;

[[Page 18732]]

    <bullet> Central Coast Ecoregion--Signal Hill Dunes; and
    <bullet> South Coast Ecoregion--Vandenberg SFB.
    This includes three of the four largest areas occupied by the 
species in the North Coast Ecoregion (see table, above). Depending on 
the severity of the impacts to the resources needed by beach layia, 
populations or portions thereof could be lost in the future.
    Populations in areas where habitat is limited or unsuitable in the 
future (see section 8.1 in the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 39-41)) 
are likely to be more susceptible to threats that continue or worsen in 
the future, potentially resulting in reduced population(s) size and 
growth rate. Loss of habitat caused by invasion of nonnative, invasive 
species is the most prominent negative influence on beach layia into 
the future.
    The populations in the Central and South Coast Ecoregions are at 
the greatest at risk of declines in abundance in the future based on 
their small size, limited distribution and expected continued threats 
in the future, particularly competition with nonnative, invasive 
species and drought stress. No projected drought trends are available; 
however, extreme events, including multi-year droughts, are expected to 
increase in likelihood into the future (Frankson et al. 2017, pp. 2-5), 
and an analysis on climatic water deficit shows an increasing trend 
throughout the range of the species into the future, particularly those 
in the Central and South Coast Ecoregions (see section 8.2.2.1 of the 
SSA report).
    Overall, it is likely that the most significant threat to beach 
layia's resiliency in the future will be continued overstabilization/
competition with invasive species and, to a lesser extent, changing 
climate conditions, erosion/high levels of disturbance, and VLM/
shoreline erosion. These threats are likely to result in a reduction in 
abundance of beach layia throughout its range stemming from removal, 
reduction, and degradation of habitat, and reduced abundance, such as 
from reduced germination, fecundity, and survival rates.
    Many populations are likely to see a reduction in abundance of 
beach layia because there are no existing management activities or no 
management plans that provide long-term assurances that management 
activities will continue into the future to improve existing suboptimal 
habitat conditions (e.g., invasive species), especially if the species 
were to be delisted. Very few populations have been managed in such a 
way that the natural processes that create habitat for the species are 
able to operate unhindered (i.e., Lanphere Dunes and Ma-le'l North and 
South). The remaining populations are dependent on continued management 
into the future to improve habitat conditions.
    The low abundance and limited distribution of the species in the 
Central and South Coast Ecoregions make those populations particularly 
vulnerable to stochastic events, including, but not limited to, 
drought. It is likely that the intensity and duration of droughts will 
increase on a regional to global scale (IPCC 2014, p. 53). The high 
likelihood of increased intensity and duration of droughts in 
California (Frankson et al. 2017, pp. 2-5) is expected to negatively 
influence beach layia populations throughout the species' range because 
rain is required for germination, but particularly in the Central and 
South Coast Ecoregions due to high projections of climatic water 
deficit in those watersheds. A compounding factor in the analysis of 
drought effects on beach layia is that two of the most common 
nonnative, invasive species that compete for habitat with beach layia--
European beachgrass and iceplant--are both drought-tolerant (Hertling 
and Lubke 2000, pp. 522-524; Lechuga-Lago et al. 2016, pp. 8-9).

Resiliency, Redundancy, and Representation

    To characterize beach layia's viability and demographic risks, we 
consider the concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and representation, 
and how the threats may negatively impact the resource needs that it 
relies on for survival and reproduction. Taking into account the 
impacts of the most significant threats and the potential for 
cumulative impacts to the resources that the species needs, our 
projections for future conditions are that beach layia's ability to 
withstand and bounce back from stochastic events (resiliency) is 
currently high and likely to remain so into the future. This resiliency 
is demonstrated by the increased abundance at most populations during a 
heavy rainfall year (e.g., 2017; table 2 in the SSA report (Service 
2018, pp. 22-24)) that followed 4 years of drought conditions. However, 
this rebound in 2017 did not occur throughout all of the species' 
range, including at some of the smaller populations.
    No significant known genetic differences exist between populations 
or among ecoregions, per a genetic study that indicates homogeneity 
across the species range (Baldwin 2006, pp. 72-73), which suggests a 
low level of ability to adapt to change (representation). Currently, 
multiple populations throughout the historical range of the species 
provide adequate redundancy and a higher outlook of viability in the 
face of potential catastrophic events.
    Of greater concern for beach layia's viability into the future is 
that the populations in the Central and South Coast Ecoregions are 
significantly smaller than the populations in the North Coast 
Ecoregion, thus decreasing the species' representation and redundancy 
in a large proportion of the species' range if these populations are 
lost in the future. The smaller abundance and acreage of these 
populations compared to the populations in the North Coast Ecoregion 
increases the chances of population loss in the foreseeable future, 
especially given the likelihood that:
    (1) Overstabilization/competition with invasive species is not 
adequately being addressed (e.g., lack of staff and funding for 
invasive species control at some locations).
    (2) Drought conditions are expected to worsen (continued multi-year 
droughts that result in reduced annual precipitation levels) across the 
species' range, but particularly in the Central and South Coast 
Ecoregions.
    (3) Drought conditions can possibly benefit the abundance and 
spread of drought-tolerant, invasive plants that are already present 
and adversely impacting the resources that beach layia relies on.
    See section 10.3 in the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 52-59) for 
additional analysis and discussion of factors influencing the viability 
of beach layia in the future. Taking into account the impacts of the 
most significant threats and the potential for cumulative impacts to 
the resource needs, our projections for future conditions are that 
beach layia's ability to withstand and bounce back from stochastic 
events (resiliency) is currently high and likely to remain so into the 
future. Additionally, multiple populations currently spread across a 
wide geographic range suggest high redundancy and representation. 
However, at this time, the populations in the Central and South Coast 
Ecoregions have lower abundance than the North Coast Ecoregion 
populations. Even in years with higher than normal abundance numbers, 
the Central and South Coast Ecoregion populations fall below the 
recovery goal of 5,000 individuals per population (Service 1998, p. 
93). Given the lower abundance compared to the rest of the species' 
range and the continued threats into the foreseeable future, the 
species' overall ability to maintain adequate

[[Page 18733]]

representation and redundancy into the future is low.

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. 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.
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to 
delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data 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.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the 
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may 
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery 
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these 
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. 
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we 
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent 
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of 
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance 
provided in a recovery plan.
    In 1998, we finalized the Seven Coastal Plants and the Myrtle's 
Silverspot Butterfly Recovery Plan, which included recovery objectives 
for beach layia (recovery plan; Service 1998, pp. 43-48). All of the 
downlisting criteria and a portion of the delisting criteria included 
in the recovery plan (Service 1998) applied to the entire suite of dune 
plant species covered by the plan. As such, some interpretation of 
those criteria may be warranted to account for the specific life 
history or other circumstances of the species in question. Therefore, 
we have based our analysis on the intent of the criteria as they relate 
to beach layia. Based on our review of the recovery plan and the 
information obtained from the various management activities, surveys, 
and research that have occurred to date (including some new abundance 
information available since publication of the proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (85 FR 61684; September 30, 2020)), we conclude that 
the status of beach layia is improved throughout its range as a result 
of significant protections to preserve or conserve habitat, along with 
land use decisions and management activities implemented by many 
landowners undertaken since the time of listing. See appendix A in the 
SSA report for a detailed account of existing regulatory mechanisms and 
voluntary conservation efforts (Service 2018, pp. 75-80). Our analysis 
indicates that the intent of the downlisting criteria has been met. Our 
summary analysis of the downlisting criteria follows:
    Downlisting Criterion 1 (addresses Listing Factors A, D, and E): 
Habitat occupied by the species that is needed to allow delisting has 
been secured, with long-term commitments and, if possible, endowments 
to fund conservation of the native vegetation.
    There has been significant improvement in the security of habitat 
occupied by beach layia since the recovery plan was prepared, including 
land acquisition by Federal agencies, State and local agencies, and 
nongovernmental organizations; adoption of local coastal plans under 
the California Coastal Act; and implementation of management plans that 
address the needs of the species. Of the estimated 595 ac (240 ha) of 
dunes habitat currently occupied by beach layia, approximately 91 
percent is owned by Federal and State governmental entities or other 
land owners with existing resource management direction precluding 
development within sensitive dunes habitat. Despite the fact that not 
all entities managing beach layia habitat have been able to demonstrate 
their ability to continue management into the future, especially if the 
species were to be delisted, due to the significant amount of occupied 
dune habitat that is now on protected lands (i.e., long-term 
commitments of approximately 32 years, including resource management 
plans that contain a restoration component), and State and Federal 
mandates to conserve the species as long as it remains listed, we 
conclude that this recovery criterion has been adequately met.
    Downlisting Criterion 2 (in part, addresses Listing Factors A, D 
and E): Management measures are being implemented to address the 
threats of invasive species, pedestrians, and OHVs at some sites.
    The Service, BLM, National Park Service (Redwood National Park, 
Point Reyes), and several other land managers in the northern portion 
of the range, and the CDPR, Department of Defense, and several other 
managers in the southern portion of the range have all instituted 
relevant management policies since the recovery plan was completed or 
since the species was listed. Those policies have reduced, and in many 
cases eliminated, the threats to beach layia posed by pedestrians and 
OHV activity, as well as reduced to a certain degree the threat of 
native and nonnative, invasive species. Because of the many management 
measures currently implemented across the range of beach layia to 
address the threats of pedestrians and OHVs, and the work conducted 
thus far to address the ongoing threat of invasive species, we conclude 
that this criterion has been adequately met.
    Downlisting Criterion 3 (in part, addresses Listing Factor E): 
Monitoring reveals that management actions are successful in reducing 
threats of invasive, nonnative species.
    Management actions over the past 12 years have reduced the threats 
from native and nonnative, invasive species, at least into the 
foreseeable future. Because of these successful invasive species 
management measures, we conclude that this criterion has been 
adequately met.
    Downlisting Criterion 4 (in part, addresses Listing Factors A, D 
and E): Additional restored habitat has been secured, with evidence of 
either natural or artificial long-term establishment of additional 
populations, and long-term commitments (and endowments where possible) 
to fund conservation of the native vegetation.
    Commitments by land managers across beach layia's range, as 
described under Downlisting Criterion 1, above,

[[Page 18734]]

have resulted in secured habitat (i.e., protected from development, 
although native or nonnative, invasive species continue to reduce the 
availability of sandy soils with sparse vegetative cover) in multiple 
geographic areas since the recovery plan was completed. These include 
several protected areas on Federal, State, and local public lands, as 
well as land acquisition and protection (e.g., conservation easements) 
by nongovernmental organizations (protections are described in each 
population description found in section 7.0 of the SSA report (Service 
2018, pp. 25-38)). Additionally, restoration has been conducted with a 
commensurate response by beach layia (e.g., the creation of an 
Endangered Species Protection Area within the Samoa/Eureka 
subpopulation, North Spit Humboldt Bay, Point Reyes National Seashore, 
Vandenberg SFB). As a result, we conclude that this criterion has been 
adequately met.

Delisting Criteria

    The intent of the delisting criteria has not yet been met for beach 
layia. The overarching goal for delisting beach layia includes removal 
of substantially all of the nonnative, invasive plants on the dunes 
where it occurs and securing written assurance of long-term support for 
continued management of the dunes, and monitoring (Service 1998, pp. 
92-93). The overarching goal is to restore natural processes that have 
been disrupted by the presence of nonnative, invasive species to dune 
systems so that beach layia and other native plants adapted to those 
environments can persist into the future.

Determination of Beach Layia Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires 
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of 
``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because of any of the 
following 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.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether the beach layia is an endangered or threatened species 
throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the species. We reviewed information presented 
in the 2011 5-year review (Service 2011, entire), additional 
information that became available since the time our 2011 5-year review 
was completed, and other available published and unpublished 
information, including information available since publication of the 
proposed rule (85 FR 61684; September 30, 2020). We also consulted with 
species experts and land management staff who are actively managing for 
the conservation of beach layia.
    We examined the following threats that may be affecting beach 
layia: Development (Factor A), herbivory/disease (Factor C), 
overstabilization/competition with invasive species (Factor A), 
changing climate conditions (Factor E), erosion/high level of 
disturbance (e.g., recreation) (Factor A), and vertical land movement/
shoreline erosion (Factor A). We found no threats associated with 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes, such as (but not limited to) collection of plants 
for scientific research (Factor B). We also considered and discussed 
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and voluntary conservation 
efforts as they relate to the threats that may affect beach layia 
(summarized within each threat discussion within chapters 8 and 10, and 
detailed in appendix A, of the SSA report, pp. 75-80).
    The most significant factors influencing the viability of beach 
layia populations at the time of listing were displacement by 
nonnative, invasive vegetation; recreational uses such as OHV 
activities and pedestrians; and urban development (57 FR 27848, June 
22, 1992; Service 1998, p. 45). At the time of the proposed downlisting 
rule (85 FR 61684; September 30, 2020) and currently, our analysis 
indicates that the level of impacts to beach layia and its habitat that 
placed the species in danger of extinction in 1992 (i.e., human-induced 
disturbances including OHV activity, agriculture, pedestrians, 
development, etc.) has substantially been reduced as a result of the 
significant commitments made by landowners to conserve lands and 
institute restoration activities at multiple populations throughout the 
species' range. However, the extensive spread of nonnative, invasive 
vegetation throughout the species' range remains a significant negative 
influence on the viability of the species. Additionally, the ability of 
the majority of landowners to continue management of habitat for the 
species into the future is uncertain, particularly if the species were 
to be delisted.
    At the time of the 5-year review (2011) and currently, we have 
become aware of the potential for anthropogenic climate change to 
affect all biota, including beach layia. Available information 
indicates that temperatures are increasing and annual rainfall is 
reduced during some years within beach layia's range, resulting in 
prolonged drought conditions that negatively influence beach layia 
abundance. Beach layia's response to these changes should be monitored 
into the future.
    Of the factors identified above, overstabilization/competition with 
invasive species (Factor A), changing climate conditions (Factor E), 
erosion/high level of disturbance (e.g., recreation) (Factor A), and 
vertical land movement/shoreline erosion (Factor A) are the most 
significant threats to the species currently and into the foreseeable 
future. After review and analysis of the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the threats as they relate to the five 
statutory factors, we find that this information does not indicate that 
these threats are affecting individual populations or the species as a 
whole across its range to the extent that they currently are of 
sufficient imminence, scope, or magnitude to rise to the level that 
beach layia is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. 
This determination is based on the current estimate of approximately 30 
million plants across the range of the species and the approximately 
two thirds of currently occupied habitat that is restored or partially 
restored, and because the species is widely distributed along the coast 
of California.
    However, our review of the best available scientific information 
indicates that, while the overall range has slightly increased since 
the time of listing (i.e., discovery of the northern-most population--
Freshwater Lagoon Spit) and the abundance of the species has increased 
significantly since the 2011 5-year review, the anticipated trajectory 
of the identified threats into the foreseeable future is likely to 
result in a condition whereby the abundance

[[Page 18735]]

and density of the species across the majority of its range (including 
the population stronghold areas in a portion of Humboldt County) are 
likely to be negatively impacted.
    Specifically, the best available information indicates there is a 
likelihood of population- and rangewide-level impacts to beach layia 
abundance in the foreseeable future, despite beneficial management 
actions at some of the populations at this time. Beach layia 
populations across the species' range are likely to be negatively 
influenced predominantly from overstabilization/competition with 
invasive species, in conjunction with predicted drought conditions. Our 
analysis reveals that one or more threats continue to act on the 
species at the population level, likely contributing to low abundance 
in most years that do not experience substantial rainfall. 
Additionally, there is a lack of range expansion at some small 
populations (e.g., Asilomar State Beach, Indian Village Dunes, and 
Signal Hill Dunes populations), likely contributing to insufficient 
recruitment necessary for stable or, ideally, increasing populations. 
With respect to the remaining populations that are experiencing OHV and 
other recreation activities (noting this threat is substantially 
reduced with the exception of a few areas in the North Coast 
Ecoregion), the existing regulatory mechanisms are likely insufficient 
to manage the beach layia habitat specifically at the Signal Hill Dunes 
population. Overall, some disturbance appears compatible with large 
populations (Wheeler 2017, pers. comm.)
    Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude 
that beach layia is not currently in danger of extinction, but it is 
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Center for Biological 
Diversity), vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on Interpretation of 
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered 
Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened 
Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided that the Service 
does not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species' 
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of 
its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is 
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether 
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the 
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction 
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for 
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question 
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of 
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with 
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to 
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Center for Biological Diversity, 
we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the 
species' range where the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., 
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for the beach layia, we 
choose to address the status question first--we consider information 
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the 
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range 
where the species is endangered.
    The statutory difference between an endangered species and a 
threatened species is the time horizon in which the species becomes in 
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction 
now, while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but 
is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Thus, we considered 
the time horizon for the threats that are driving the beach layia to 
warrant its classification as a threatened species throughout all of 
its range. We examined the following threats: Overstabilization/
competition with invasive species, changing climate conditions, 
erosion/high level of disturbance (e.g., recreation), and vertical land 
movement/shoreline erosion, including cumulative effects. While some of 
these threats currently exist throughout the range of the species 
(e.g., the presence of invasive species, recreational impacts), it is 
the anticipated future increase in overstabilization/competition with 
invasive species, exacerbated by climate change-influenced drought that 
is driving the threatened status of the species.
    The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the 
time horizon on which this heightened threat to beach layia from 
drought-influenced overstabilization/competition with invasive species, 
and beach layia's negative response to that heightened threat, is 
likely to occur is the foreseeable future. In addition, the best 
scientific and commercial data available do not indicate that this 
heightened threat is more immediate in any portions of the species' 
range. Therefore, we determine that the beach layia is not in danger of 
extinction now in any portion of its range, but that the species is 
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range. This is consistent with the courts' 
holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-
01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 
2017).
    Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we are reclassifying beach layia as a 
threatened species throughout all of its range in accordance with 
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that beach layia does not meet the definition of 
an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, but does meet the definition of a threatened species in 
accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, we 
are downlisting beach layia from an endangered species to a threatened 
species, and this change will be reflected on the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is classified, those activities that would or would 
not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species being 
listed. Because we are listing this species as a threatened species, 
the prohibitions in section 9 will not apply directly. We are, 
therefore, adopting a set of regulations to provide for the 
conservation of the species in accordance with the Act's section 4(d), 
which also authorizes us to apply any of the prohibitions in the Act's 
section 9 to a threatened species. The 4(d) rule, which includes a 
description of the kinds of activities that will or will not constitute 
a violation, complies with our July 1, 1994, policy.

[[Page 18736]]

II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species 
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory 
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree 
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)). 
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence 
of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation 
prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited 
under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 
9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Thus, the combination of the two 
sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary with wide latitude of 
discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored to 
the specific conservation needs of the threatened species. The second 
sentence grants particularly broad discretion to us when adopting the 
prohibitions under section 9.
    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules 
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority 
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or include a limited 
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council 
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. 
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address 
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when 
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened 
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available 
to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species. 
[She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such 
species, or [she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation but 
allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd 
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
    Exercising this authority under section 4(d), we have developed a 
species-specific 4(d) rule that is designed to address beach layia's 
specific threats and conservation needs. Although the statute does not 
require us to make a ``necessary and advisable'' finding with respect 
to the adoption of specific prohibitions under section 9, we find that 
this rule as a whole satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the 
Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of beach layia. As discussed above under Determination 
of Beach Layia Status, we conclude that beach layia is no longer at 
risk of extinction but is still likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future, primarily due to the identified threats of overstabilization/
competition with invasive species and drought conditions, in addition 
to loss of habitat and plants at some locations from recreational 
disturbance and erosion (e.g., shoreline erosion, vertical land 
movement). The provisions of this 4(d) rule promote conservation of 
beach layia by making it unlawful to remove and reduce to possession 
beach layia from Federal land. The provisions of this rule are one of 
many tools that we will use to promote the conservation of the beach 
layia.

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule

    This 4(d) rule enhances the conservation of beach layia by 
prohibiting detrimental activities and allowing activities that benefit 
the species.
    This 4(d) rule provides for the conservation of beach layia by 
prohibiting, for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States, the following activities, except as otherwise authorized or 
permitted: Import or export; removing and reducing to possession beach 
layia from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damaging or 
destroying the species on any area under Federal jurisdiction; or 
removing, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying the species on 
any area under Federal jurisdiction in knowing violation of any law or 
regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State 
criminal trespass law; delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, 
or shipping the species in interstate or foreign commerce in the course 
of a commercial activity; and selling or offering for sale the species 
in interstate or foreign commerce.
    As discussed above under Determination of Beach Layia Status, 
several factors are affecting the status of beach layia. A range of 
activities have the potential to impact the beach layia, including the 
loss of habitat and plants at some locations from recreational 
disturbance. Regulating these activities will help preserve the 
species' remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and 
decrease synergistic, negative effects from other stressors.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities, 
including those described above, involving threatened plants under 
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits for threatened 
plants are codified at 50 CFR 17.72, which states that the Service 
Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise 
prohibited with regard to threatened species. The regulations also 
state that the permit will be governed by the provisions of 50 CFR 
17.72 unless a species-specific 4(d) rule applicable to the plant is 
provided at 50 CFR 17.73 to 17.78. We interpret that second sentence to 
mean that permits for threatened species are governed by the provisions 
of 50 CFR 17.72 unless a species-specific 4(d) rule provides otherwise. 
On August 27, 2019, we published a final rule (84 FR 44753) revising 50 
CFR 17.71 to remove the prior default extension of most of the 
prohibitions for activities involving endangered plants to threatened 
plants. We did not intend for those revisions to limit or alter the 
applicability of the permitting provisions in 50 CFR 17.72, or require 
that every 4(d) rule spell out any permitting provisions that apply to 
that species. To the contrary, we anticipate that permitting provisions 
will generally be similar or identical for most species, so applying 
the provisions of 50 CFR 17.72 unless a 4(d) rule provides otherwise 
would likely avoid substantial duplication. Moreover, this 
interpretation brings 50 CFR 17.72 in line with the comparable 
provision for wildlife at 50 CFR 17.32, which states that a permit will 
be governed by the provisions of 50 CFR 17.32 unless a species-specific 
4(d) rule applicable to the wildlife, appearing at 50 CFR 17.40 to 
17.48, provides otherwise. Under 50 CFR 17.72 with regard to threatened 
plants, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For 
scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic 
hardship, for botanical or horticultural exhibition, for educational 
purposes, or other activities consistent with the purposes and policy 
of the Act. Additional statutory exemptions from the prohibitions are 
found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    The Service recognizes the special and unique relationship with our 
State

[[Page 18737]]

natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of 
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and 
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, 
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State 
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working 
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique 
position to assist the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act. 
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Services shall 
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying 
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee 
or agent of a State conservation agency which is a party to a 
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) 
of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, 
will be able to conduct activities designed to conserve beach layia 
that may result in otherwise prohibited activities without additional 
authorization.
    We recognize the beneficial and educational aspects of activities 
with seeds of cultivated plants, which generally enhance the 
propagation of the species, and therefore satisfy permit requirements 
under the Act. We intend to monitor the interstate and foreign commerce 
and import and export of these specimens in a manner that will not 
inhibit such activities, providing the activities do not represent a 
threat to the species' survival in the wild. In this regard, seeds of 
cultivated specimens will not be regulated provided that a statement 
that the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the seeds or 
their container.
    Nothing in this 4(d) rule changes in any way the recovery planning 
provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation requirements 
under section 7 of the Act, or our ability to enter into partnerships 
for the management and protection of the beach layia. However, 
interagency cooperation may be further streamlined through planned 
programmatic consultations for the species between us and other Federal 
agencies, where appropriate.

III. Summary of Comments and Recommendations

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of seven 
appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report. We received responses 
from four specialists, which informed the SSA report and this final 
rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing 
determinations are based on scientifically sound data, conclusions, and 
analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the biology and ecology 
of the species, including the threats that the species faces.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the beach layia. The 
peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, 
and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to 
improve the SSA report and final rule. Peer reviewer comments are 
incorporated into the SSA report and this final rule as appropriate; no 
significant, substantive issues were identified with our analysis and 
SSA report.

Public Comments

    We received one public comment in response to the proposed rule. We 
reviewed this comment for substantive issues and new information 
regarding the proposed rule. A summary of the substantive issues raised 
in the comment follows.
    (1) Comment: The commenter questioned whether the 1998 recovery 
plan is working sufficiently, or if there are plans to write a new 
recovery plan.
    Our Response: Recovery plans provide a road map with detailed site-
specific management actions for private, Tribal, Federal, and State 
cooperation in conserving listed species and their ecosystems. A 
recovery plan provides guidance on how best to help listed species, 
including beach layia, to achieve recovery, but it is not a regulatory 
document. At this time, we do believe the current recovery plan has 
been successful for addressing beach layia's needs, as demonstrated by 
the various recovery actions that have been implemented to date (see 
Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation, above). We currently have no 
plans to revise the existing recovery plan, but we do intend to 
continue to evaluate the species' status into the future via periodic 
status reviews to assess ongoing conservation efforts and ensure that 
species protections are appropriately classified under the Act.
    (2) Comment: The commenter questioned if it is the Service's goal 
to delist beach layia in the future.
    Our Response: As with all listed species, the Service's ultimate 
goal is to recover the species to the point that it no longer requires 
the protections of the Act and can be delisted. We have worked, and 
continue to work, cooperatively with landowners across beach layia's 
range to further the conservation of the species, with the overarching 
goal that when the species no longer meets the Act's definition of a 
threatened species, we can propose to remove beach layia from the List 
of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Key to that assessment will be 
ensuring that this conservation-reliant species has management 
commitments in place to address the threat of nonnative invasive 
species into the future.
    (3) Comment: The commenter asked what caused the threats to beach 
layia to be reduced compared to the level of impacts identified when it 
was listed in 1992.
    Our Response: The reduction in threats impacting beach layia is due 
to the conservation efforts implemented by Federal, State, local, and 
private entities. Examples of the conservation efforts are the removal 
of both native and nonnative, invasive species from many populations 
across the species' range, which have expanded suitable habitat for 
beach layia and appear to be the most beneficial conservation action 
for the species. Also, protecting lands from development has 
contributed to the reduction in threats. Protected lands include a 
significant amount of occupied dune habitat that receive long-term 
commitments of approximately 32 years, including resource management 
plans that contain a restoration component to address some threats, and 
State and Federal mandates to conserve the species as long as it 
remains listed. Additionally, prohibiting OHV use in some of the areas 
supporting beach layia populations has reduced the overall level of 
both short-term and long-term impacts from these recreational 
activities. For more information, see the discussions under Recovery 
and Recovery Plan Implementation and Determination of Beach Layia 
Status, above.
    (4) Comment: The commenter requested that we develop and display 
dynamic, interactive maps in proposed rules to compare pre-listing 
status and current species status. For example, the commenter suggested 
that it would help the public to see beach layia population ``numbers'' 
at the time of listing compared to current information.
    Our Response: At this time, requirements and limitations for 
publication in the Federal Register prevent interactive mapping tools 
for proposed and final rules. However, detailed qualitative and 
quantitative historical and current information on species abundance 
and distribution is

[[Page 18738]]

available in the SSA report (Service 2018, chapters 5 and 6, pp. 13-
38). The SSA report and supporting information are available on the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2018-0042.
    (5) Comment: The commenter inquired about the cost to the public of 
promulgating and implementing the beach layia proposed downlisting 
rule.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us make 
listing determinations ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.'' The Act does not allow us to consider the 
economic or other impacts of listing, whether over the short term, long 
term, or cumulatively. Therefore, we may not consider information 
concerning economic or management (implementation) impacts when making 
listing determinations.

IV. Required Determinations

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 regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of 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)).

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 no Tribes will 
be affected by this rule because there are no Tribal lands or interests 
within or adjacent to beach layia habitat.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in the SSA report and this 
rulemaking is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0042 and upon request from the Field 
Supervisor, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment Team and the Arcata 
Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we hereby 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  17.12, amend the table in paragraph (h) by revising the 
entry for ``Layia carnosa'' under FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
         Scientific name              Common name          Where listed          Status         and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Flowering Plants
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Layia carnosa...................  Beach layia........  Wherever found.....               T   57 FR 27848, 6/22/
                                                                                              1992; 87 FR
                                                                                              [insert Federal
                                                                                              Register page
                                                                                              where the document
                                                                                              begins], 3/31/
                                                                                              2022; 50 CFR
                                                                                              17.73(b).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.73 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.73   Special rules--flowering plants.

* * * * *
    (b) Layia carnosa (beach layia).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered plants also apply to Layia carnosa (beach layia). Except as 
provided under paragraph (b)(2) of this section and Sec. Sec.  17.4 and 
17.5, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to 
commit, or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard 
to this species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(b) for endangered 
plants.
    (ii) Remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal 
jurisdiction, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(c)(1) for endangered plants.
    (iii) Maliciously damage or destroy the species on any areas under 
Federal jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy the 
species on any other area in knowing violation of any State law or 
regulation or in the course of any violation of a State criminal 
trespass law, as set forth at section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(d) for endangered plants.
    (v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(e) for 
endangered plants.
    (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. The following exceptions from 
prohibitions apply to beach layia:
    (i) The prohibitions described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section 
do not

[[Page 18739]]

apply to activities conducted as authorized by a permit issued in 
accordance with the provisions set forth at Sec.  17.72.
    (ii) Any employee or agent of the Service or of a State 
conservation agency that is operating a conservation program pursuant 
to the terms of a cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance 
with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by that agency for such 
purposes, may, when acting in the course of official duties, remove and 
reduce to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction members of 
beach layia that are covered by an approved cooperative agreement to 
carry out conservation programs.
    (iii) You may engage in any act prohibited under paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section with seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a 
statement that the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the 
seeds or their container.

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-06740 Filed 3-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P