18722 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this action. In addition, this action 

does not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VIII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 25, 2022. 

Marietta Echeverria, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR 

chapter I as follows: 

PART 180—TOLERANCES AND 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE 

CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Section 180.383(b) is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.383 Sodium salt of acifluorfen; 

tolerances for residues. 

* * * * * 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

Time-limited tolerances are established 

for residues of the herbicide sodium salt 

of acifluorfen, including its metabolites 

and degradates, in or on the specified 

agricultural commodities in the 

following table, resulting from use of the 

pesticide pursuant to FIFRA section 18 

emergency exemptions. Compliance 

with the tolerance levels specified in the 

following table is to be determined by 

measuring only the sum of acifluorfen 

acid, (5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl) 

phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate), acifluorfen 

amine methyl ester (methyl 5-[2-chloro4(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2- 

aminobenzoate), calculated as the 

stoichiometric equivalent of acifluorfen 

acid in or on the commodities. The 

tolerances expire on the date specified 

in the table. 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b) 

Commodity 

Parts 

per 

million 

Expiration 

date 

Beet, sugar, roots .............. 0.1 12/31/2024 

Beet, sugar, leaves ........... 0.1 12/31/2024 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–06817 Filed 3–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–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-ofcontact 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 humaninduced disturbances (particularly offhighway 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 midwinter, 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 midsuccessional 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 droughtlike 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 crosspollination (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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
18724 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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)): 

• 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 

• Central Coast Ecoregion: 

Monterey County—Monterey 

Peninsula 

• 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

Population Subpopulation Status Ownership 2017 Acres 

Most recent 

abundance estimates 

(as of 2017, unless 

indicated otherwise) 

NORTH COAST ECOREGION (Humboldt County) 

Freshwater Lagoon Spit................................................... Extant ................. National Park Service ...................................... 1 3 ...................... 469 1 (2021). 

Mouth of Little 

River.

.................................................. Extirpated 2 ......... California State Parks ...................................... 0 ........................ N/A. 

Mouth of Mad 

River.

.................................................. Extirpated 2 ......... Humboldt County ............................................. 0 ........................ N/A. 

North Spit Humboldt Bay.Mad River Beach .................... Extant ................. Humboldt County, Humboldt Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge (Refuge).

unknown ............ unknown (2021). 

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 Management (BLM) ............... 3 48 .................... 2.1 million 3

Manila North ............................ Extant ................. Friends of the Dunes, Manila Community 

Services District.

3 82 .................... 1.4 million 3. 

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 Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW), BLM.

3 83 .................... 6.1 million 3. 

North Spit Eel 

River.

.................................................. Extant ................. CDFW ............................................................... 3 37 .................... 4.7 million 3. 

South Spit Eel 

River.

.................................................. Extant ................. Wildlands Conservancy .................................... 3 1.5 ................... 11,307 4. 

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 Service ...................................... 7 146 .................. 2.7 million 7. 

CENTRAL COAST ECOREGION (San Francisco County) 

San Francisco ...... .................................................. Extirpated ........... ........................................................................... 0 ........................ N/A. 

CENTRAL COAST ECOREGION (Monterey County) 

Point Pinos ........... .................................................. Extirpated 8 ......... City of Pacific Grove ........................................ 0 ........................ Extirpated 3. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18725 

TABLE OF BEACH LAYIA’S HISTORICAL AND CURRENT POPULATIONS, SUBPOPULATIONS, OWNERSHIP, AND ABUNDANCE

ESTIMATES, BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC AND COMMERCIAL INFORMATION—Continued 

Population Subpopulation Status Ownership 2017 Acres 

Most recent 

abundance estimates 

(as of 2017, unless 

indicated otherwise) 

Asilomar State 

Beach.

.................................................. Extant ................. California State Parks ...................................... 9 0.17 ................. 9 1,541. 

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 Defense .................................... 12 2.8 (2019) ...... 12 11,902 (2019). 

1 Census and mapping conducted by the National Park Service for both acreage (Julian 2017, pers. comm.) and abundance information (Julian 2021, pers. comm.). 

2Source 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.). 

5Actual amount of occupied habitat not determined; conservative estimate. 

6Estimate based on average density from monitoring data collected by BLM (Hassett 2017, pers. comm.). 

7Point Reyes NS, mapping from 2001–2003 and 2017 sampling conducted in Abbots Lagoon area (Parsons 2017, pers. comm.). 

8Presumed 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). 11Estimate 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 Refugeowned 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 Male’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 Male’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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
18726 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 lifehistory 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 (DorrellCanepa 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
18728 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 speciesspecific 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 specieswide 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
18730 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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: 

• 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; 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
18732 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

• Central Coast Ecoregion—Signal 

Hill Dunes; and 

• 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 longterm 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
18734 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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., humaninduced 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 northernmost 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
18736 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 speciesspecific 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 sitespecific 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 longterm 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
18738 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 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: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations 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

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.73 by adding paragraph 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§§ 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 

§ 17.61(b) for endangered plants. 

(ii) Remove and reduce to possession 

from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as 

set forth at § 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 § 17.61(d) for endangered plants. 

(v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 18739 

apply to activities conducted as 

authorized by a permit issued in 

accordance with the provisions set forth 

at § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 140501394–5279–02; RTID 

0648–XB887] 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2022 

Recreational Accountability Measure 

and Closure for Blueline Tilefish in the 

South Atlantic Region 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS implements 

accountability measures (AMs) for 

recreational blueline tilefish in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the 

South Atlantic. NMFS has determined 

that recreational landings for blueline 

tilefish will reach the recreational 

annual catch limit (ACL) by July 26, 

2022. Therefore, NMFS will close the 

recreational sector for blueline tilefish 

in the South Atlantic EEZ at 12:01 a.m., 

local time, July 26, 2022, and it will 

remain closed until the 2023 

recreational fishing season begins on 

May 1, 2023. This closure is necessary 

to protect the blueline tilefish resource. 

DATES: This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., 

local time, July 26, 2022, until 12:01 

a.m., local time, January 1, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Region, 

telephone: 727–824–5305, email: 

mary.vara@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

snapper-grouper fishery of the South 

Atlantic includes blueline tilefish and is 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared 

by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council and is 

implemented by NMFS under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

NMFS implemented management 

measures for blueline tilefish in 

Amendment 32 to the FMP 

(Amendment 32) (80 FR 16583; March 

30, 2015), including current recreational 

AMs. Abbreviated Framework 3 to the 

FMP, which was implemented in 

August 2020 (85 FR 43145; July 16, 

2020), set the recreational ACL for 

blueline tilefish at 116,820 lb, (52,989 

kg), round weight. Under 50 CFR 

622.193(z)(2)(i), NMFS is required to 

close the recreational sector for blueline 

tilefish when the recreational ACL is 

reached, or is projected to be reached, 

by filing a notification to that effect with 

the Office of the Federal Register. 

NMFS has determined that 

recreational landings for South Atlantic 

blueline tilefish will reach the 

recreational ACL by July 26, 2022. 

Accordingly, the recreational sector for 

South Atlantic blueline tilefish will 

close effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, 

July 26, 2022, until 12:01 a.m., local 

time, January 1, 2023, the start of the 

next fishing year. However, as described 

in 50 CFR 622.183(b)(7), the recreational 

sector for blueline tilefish is also closed 

from January 1 through April 30, and 

September 1 through December 31, each 

year. Therefore, after the effective date 

of the closure on July 26, 2022, the 

recreational sector may not harvest 

blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic 

EEZ until May 1, 2023. 

During the closure, the bag and 

possession limits for blueline tilefish in 

or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. 

Classification 

NMFS issues this action pursuant to 

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 

622.193(z)(2)(i), issued pursuant to 

section 304(b), and is exempt from 

review under Executive Order 12866. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there 

is good cause to waive prior notice and 

an opportunity for public comment on 

this action, as notice and comment is 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest. Such procedures are 

unnecessary because the regulations 

associated with the closure of the 

blueline tilefish recreational sector have 

already been subject to notice and 

public comment, and all that remains is 

to notify the public of the date of the 

recreational closure. Prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment on this 

action is contrary to the public interest 

because of the need to protect the South 

Atlantic blueline tilefish resource. 

Additionally, providing as much 

advance notice to the public of this 

closure allows charter vessel and 

headboat businesses that fish for 

blueline tilefish to prepare for the rest 

of the fishing season and to schedule or 

reschedule trips for their clients and to 

maximize opportunities for their 

business revenues and profits. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: March 25, 2022. 

Ngagne Jafnar Gueye, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06712 Filed 3–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1