[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 5, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15763-15779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04278]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 2223]
RIN 1018-BE00


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of 
Chrysopsis floridana (Florida Golden Aster) From the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 
the Florida golden aster (Chrysopsis floridana), a short-lived 
perennial, from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
(List) due to recovery. Our review indicates that the threats to the 
species have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species 
has recovered and no longer meets the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). Accordingly, the prohibitions and conservation measures provided 
by the Act will no longer apply to this species.

DATES: This rule is effective April 4, 2024.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, supporting documents used in preparing this 
rule, the post-delisting monitoring plan, and the comments we received 
on the June 24, 2021, proposed rule are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Division Manager, 
Florida Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, 
Jacksonville, FL 32256; telephone 904-731-3336. Individuals in the 
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
delisting if it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species 
(in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range) or threatened species (likely to become an endangered species 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range). The Florida golden aster is listed as an endangered 
species, and we are delisting it. Delisting a species can only be 
completed by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act 
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This rule removes the Florida golden aster 
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants based on the 
species' recovery.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. The determination to delist a species must be 
based on an analysis of the same factors.
    Under the Act, we must review the status of all listed species at 
least once every 5 years. We must delist a species if we determine, 
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, that the 
species is neither an endangered species nor a threatened species. Our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e) identify three reasons why we might 
determine a species should be delisted: (1) The species is extinct, (2) 
the species does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species 
or a threatened species, or (3) the listed entity does not meet the 
Act's definition of a species. Here, we have determined that the 
Florida golden aster does not meet the definition of an endangered 
species or a threatened species; therefore, we are delisting it.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed delisting rule (86 FR 33177) for the 
Florida golden aster published on June 24, 2021, for a detailed 
description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Florida golden aster. The SSA team was composed of Service 
biologists, in consultation with other species experts.

[[Page 15764]]

The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and 
commercial data available concerning the status of the species, 
including the impact of past, present, and future factors (both 
negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
    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 in 
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific 
review of the information contained in the Florida golden aster SSA 
report. As discussed in the proposed rule, we sent the SSA report to 
six independent peer reviewers and received two responses. The peer 
reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. In preparing the 
proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as 
appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation for the 
proposed rule and this final rule. A summary for the peer review 
comments and our responses can be found in the Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations below.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In this final rule, we make no substantive changes to our June 24, 
2021, proposed rule. Minor, nonsubstantive changes have been made 
throughout this final rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on June 24, 2021 (86 FR 33177), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on our 
proposal to delist the Florida golden aster and the draft post-
delisting monitoring (PDM) plan by August 23, 2021. We also contacted 
appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and 
organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposal. A newspaper notice inviting public comments was 
published on June 30, 2021, in the Tampa Bay Times. We did not receive 
any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided 
during the comment period is addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from two 
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. The SSA report was also 
submitted to our Federal, State, and Tribal partners for scientific 
review. We received review from two partners. We reviewed all comments 
we received from the peer and partner reviewers for substantive issues 
and new information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The 
reviewers did not raise any substantive issues and provided only 
editorial comments that we incorporated into the final SSA report, 
which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule.

Public Comments

    We reviewed all public comments for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the species. Substantive comments we received 
during the comment period are addressed below.
    (1) Comment: Several commenters stated the species should not be 
delisted because populations are performing poorly. Multiple commenters 
pointed to the report titled, ``Demographic Data Collection to Assess 
the Endangerment of Chrysopsis floridana 2020'' (Peterson et al. 2020, 
entire) as supporting their position that the species should not be 
delisted.
    Our response: The report titled, ``Demographic Data Collection to 
Assess the Endangerment of Chrysopsis floridana 2020'' (Peterson et al. 
2020, entire) was funded by the Service to analyze a subset of known 
populations and did not look at all known populations. The intent of 
the effort was to collect data to provide additional information to 
supplement the 2018 Florida golden aster SSA report. The results of 
Peterson et al. (2020, entire) reinforce our determination that the 
Florida golden aster no longer meets the Act's definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species.
    The 18 sites for the report were chosen specifically based on aster 
population size and habitat development risk, which results in 
increased future management constraints. Eleven of the selected 
populations were classified as low risk, and the remaining seven were 
classified as high risk, based on modeling projections in the SSA 
report (Service 2018, p. 35). Of the 18 populations analyzed for the 
report, all populations were analyzed for demographic data, and 8 of 
those also had stage class (i.e., seedlings, vegetative plants, 
reproductive plants) data collected. Data were collected over a 3-year 
period, and annual survival and annual seedling survival were 
calculated each year. This approach was intended to provide an analysis 
of the variation in populations across the species' range, looking at 
population resiliency and habitat management effectiveness. The 
analysis was a comparison of the populations' metrics between the 
populations studied but is not comparable to the overall current 
condition of the species. Stage structure was used as an indirect 
measure of population health because fecundity data (seed production) 
were not collected, and full demographic models could not be assembled 
for the species.
    Annual survival was variable among populations and across years. 
Stage structure (``small vegetative'' plants, ``large vegetative'' 
plants, and ``reproductive'' plants) also varied over the 3-year 
period, with demographically healthy populations having more seedlings 
and the least healthy populations having more flowering plants. This 
variation would be expected based on the annual variations in climate 
conditions over time as well as the phenology of the species. 
Demographic results indicated moderate annual survival rates for 2017-
2018 (75.6 percent) and 2018-2019 (71.8 percent). The annual survival 
rate for the 2017-2018 populations ranged from 55-91 percent with 
similar rates of 42-89 percent in 2018-2019. The annual seedling 
survival (62.0 percent and 64.6 percent, respectively) was slightly 
lower. The report concluded that at least 6 populations might be 
considered healthy and self-sustaining, and it may be determined that 
the other 12 populations (all on protected lands) will fare better in 
future years given increased management efforts (ideally fire), 
especially within wild populations.
    Variation in survival rates could be attributed to the time since 
the last fire, habitat management application, and/or age of the mature 
plant during the study period. Florida golden aster is a short-lived 
perennial (3-5 years) that flowers multiple years once reproductive. 
Not knowing the age of the plants being analyzed over the short 
timeframe in the randomly selected plots could have biased the results, 
as some of the plants may have been already at the end of their 
lifespan or not reproductive yet. In addition, consideration of early 
versus late lifespan productivity or species cycles (phenology), which 
are currently unknown, may be important factors influencing the 
analyzed data. The survival rate for this species is described as 
moderate; the annual survival rates for this aster are adequate for the 
species and the habitat it occupies (Peterson et al. 2020, entire). 
Although survival rates varied among introduced and wild populations 
and varied based on the habitat management status of the population, 
populations consistently showed seedling recruitment, which is an 
indication of recruitment in all

[[Page 15765]]

populations regardless of health conditions.
    Based on the most current survey across the species' range (2006-
2018), 30 known extant populations, natural and introduced, occur in 
five counties. Of these, 25 populations occur on 22 protected and 
managed conservation lands. The post-delisting monitoring plan will 
utilize baseline data for the populations studied in the report to 
further assess long-term trends.
    (2) Comment: Some commenters stated the species should not be 
delisted because recovery criteria for delisting have not been 
achieved.
    Our response: Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our 
partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to 
listed species, as well as measureable 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 under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to delist a species is 
ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial 
data available and consideration of the standards listed in 50 CFR 
424.11(e) 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. According to the recovery plan there 
are many paths for this species to be recovered without all the 
criteria being fully met. The recovery plan states that one or more 
criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be 
accomplished. In this instance, we have determined that the threats to 
Florida golden aster are minimized sufficiently and that the species no 
longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species.
    (3) Comment: One commenter indicated delisting was premature 
because there was no data-driven management plan for the species. The 
commenter further stated that while short-term monitoring has suggested 
a role for fire in maintaining populations, critical data are lacking 
pertaining to the best management practices to maintain Florida golden 
aster habitat, specifically disturbance dynamics and the optimal fire 
frequency for managing populations.
    Our response: In our June 24, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 33177), we 
announced the availability of a draft PDM plan for the Florida golden 
aster, and we requested comments on the draft PDM plan. We also 
solicited comments on the draft PDM plan from agencies that manage 
Florida golden aster on their conservation lands, as well as State and 
county partners that have been engaged in the species' conservation. We 
received comments from both the Florida Forest Service and Hillsborough 
County's Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection Program, and 
their comments were incorporated into the final PDM plan. See Post-
delisting Monitoring, below, for more information.
    The 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. Complete understanding 
of specific data pertaining to best management practices for Florida 
golden aster such as disturbance dynamics or the fire return intervals 
for optimal survival and health, is not a requirement of the Act. 
Nevertheless, the general response of Florida golden aster to 
disturbance regimes is sufficiently understood to inform management. 
The delisting of Florida golden aster should not discourage continued 
research on the species and its habitat needs. Indeed, the PDM plan 
includes recommendations for this type of research.
    (4) Comment: One commenter noted that growing development 
surrounding Florida golden aster populations will further complicate 
fire management, which is important for maintaining suitable habitat. 
It will become increasingly difficult for many areas where Florida 
golden aster is present to be managed with fire, and there is little 
evidence that mechanical disturbance could serve as an effective 
surrogate for fire.
    Our response: The development pressures on native landscapes 
throughout peninsular Florida are challenging and will continue to 
persist indefinitely. Habitat management on conservation lands in the 
wildland-urban interface can experience various constraints. However, 
not all conservation lands with Florida golden aster populations are 
subject to these constraints, and development often does not preclude 
fire management; for example, the national wildlife refuges in Florida 
frequently conduct prescribed fires despite close proximity to 
developed areas. Additionally, various treatments and techniques to 
prepare fuel loads prior to prescribed fire application can also 
overcome many of these constraints, along with managing the area 
without the use of fire. New and innovative methods are constantly 
being developed and employed to accomplish the desired habitat 
conditions. Best management practices and sound management planning 
alleviates many of the obstacles land managers encounter when pursing 
optimal conditions in support of the targeted species.
    While the commenter stated that mechanical disturbance is not as 
effective as fire in maintaining habitat for the Florida golden aster, 
mechanical treatments can be effective, if deployed correctly. We note 
in the SSA report that in the absence of fire, habitat openness can be 
maintained with mowing, hand removal of trees and shrubs near plants, 
or other mechanical treatments. Populations have persisted along 
periodically mowed rights-of-way (e.g., underneath powerlines, along 
roads and railroads) for decades without a prescribed burn program 
(Service 2018, p. 12).
    (5) Comment: One commenter stated that keeping the species listed 
will improve the Florida golden aster's chances of recovery, adding 
that continued listing would provide support necessary to continue 
research and conservation work for the species.
    Our response: We agree that the protections of the Act have helped 
recover the Florida golden aster, such that it no longer meets the 
Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. 
Currently, the vast majority of the known populations occur on 
protected and managed conservation lands and have at least moderate 
resiliency. Additionally, we expect habitat management for the species 
to continue, such that these populations will only increase, though 
this was not relied on for the delisting determination. The Florida 
golden aster, therefore, is recovered and no longer warrants the 
protections of the Act, now or in the foreseeable future. Retaining the 
species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants would 
be contrary to the direction of the Act and would continue to draw 
resources from other species that still need the protections of the 
Act.

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and 
overall viability of the Florida golden aster is presented in the SSA 
report available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2019-0071. A summary of that information is presented here.
    Florida golden aster is endemic to xeric (very dry) uplands east 
and southeast of the Tampa Bay area of central Florida. The historical 
range of

[[Page 15766]]

the Florida golden aster is thought to span parts of Hillsborough, 
Manatee, Pinellas, Highlands, and Hardee Counties, but the true extent 
of the historical range is uncertain because the ecosystems on which it 
occurs were rapidly converted to residential, commercial, and 
agricultural uses after European settlement of the region. Agriculture 
began in 1880, with grazing and production of citrus and row crops. 
Residential and commercial activity began around 1840, mainly in the 
Tampa Bay area and beach communities through the 1940s and 1950s, but 
suburban and rural areas started expanding in the 1960s and 1970s and 
that expansion has continued at a consistent rate. The species was 
first collected and described from a specimen in Manatee County in 
early 1901, with subsequent collections in Pinellas and Hillsborough 
Counties in the 1920s. The earliest known Manatee County and Pinellas 
County populations occurred in coastal areas of Bradenton Beach and St. 
Petersburg Beach. However, these populations have since been 
extirpated. The last remaining natural population known to occur in 
Pinellas County was discovered in 1983; however, a housing development 
eliminated all available habitat by 1985.
    When the species was listed as endangered in 1986 (see 51 FR 17974; 
May 16, 1986), nine known extant populations of the species occurred in 
five locations, all coastal, in southeastern Hillsborough County 
(Wunderlin et al. 1981, entire). Since the listing of the species, 
increased survey efforts have resulted in the discovery of additional 
populations, including occurrences farther inland. Many of the newly 
discovered locations have since been acquired as protected sites with 
active conservation management activities implemented to improve 
habitat conditions. As discussed below, introductions have occurred on 
conservation lands in Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas 
Counties. It is not known whether these introduction sites were 
historically occupied by the Florida golden aster or, if so, how long 
ago they supported natural populations.
    Based on the most current surveys across the species' range (2006-
2018), 30 known extant populations, natural and introduced, occur in 5 
counties (Hardee--4 populations, Highlands--1 population, 
Hillsborough--16 populations, Manatee--5 populations, and Pinellas--4 
populations; figure 1). Populations were delineated using a separation 
distance of 2 kilometers (km) between occurrences (see Current 
Condition, below, for more information). Of these, 25 populations occur 
entirely or mostly on 22 protected sites; a protected site is a site 
that has been acquired in fee simple and placed into long-term 
conservation, or that has a conservation easement or other binding land 
agreement by the site owner that shows a commitment to its conservation 
in perpetuity. In addition, all protected sites have a management 
agreement or plan both developed and implemented. None of the lands 
occupied by the Florida golden aster are federally owned or managed but 
rather they are owned and managed by a State, local, or nongovernmental 
entity. The remaining five extant populations occur on private lands or 
along roadways or railroad lines.
    The most recent surveys (occurring between 2006 and 2018) show that 
just over half of the Florida golden aster individuals occur in nine 
introduced populations at eight sites. The earliest introductions, a 
total of 10, were undertaken in 1986; three of those populations remain 
extant in Hardee and Manatee Counties, while seven other introductions 
in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties failed. Introductions were again 
initiated during 2008-2013, when Bok Tower Gardens introduced six 
additional populations in Hardee, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties, 
containing 24,825 plants (as of the most recent censuses, with about 
12,000 in one population). Four of the six populations contain more 
than 1,000 plants; the remaining two populations (North and South 
Duette Preserve) are the most recently introduced populations (2013), 
have been growing rapidly, and are surrounded by ample habitat and 
little to no development, so they will also reach sizes comparable to 
the other introduced populations.
    According to the most recent surveys, approximately 50,000 
individuals exist with more than 90 percent occurring in the 25 
populations located on protected lands. Although this estimate is the 
best available information, it gives only an approximation of the true 
current abundance of the Florida golden aster because surveys are not 
conducted every year and are conducted for different objectives. 
Moreover, population sizes fluctuate annually. Twelve of the 30 
populations had more than 1,000 individual plants present when last 
observed. We note that a 56-km gap occurs between the easternmost 
naturally occurring population in Manatee County and the nearest 
naturally occurring population in Hardee County, and it is not 
presently known whether this gap is due to the lack of suitable 
habitat, lack of observation, a long-distance dispersal event, or 
fragmentation of a formerly continuous distribution.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 15767]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR24.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

Recovery Criteria

    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 listed status.
    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 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 Act's 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 the guidance 
provided in a recovery plan.
    We issued the recovery plan for the Florida golden aster on August 
29, 1988. The primary objective of the recovery plan was to provide 
sufficient habitat for the Florida golden aster, both through 
protection of the sites and proper vegetation management. The recovery 
plan calls for establishment of new populations of the species. The 
recovery plan states that reclassification of this species to 
threatened could be considered if 10 geographically distinct 
populations are established in its three native counties, and delisting 
could be

[[Page 15768]]

considered if 20 such populations are secured (USFWS 1988, p. 3). 
Currently, Florida golden aster occurs in 30 geographically distinct 
populations across five counties, 25 are on protected lands, and 18 of 
these populations have high or very high resiliency (see table 2), 
which is consistent with the recovery plan's delisting criterion.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the 
same day, we issued a final rule that revised 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 
(84 FR 44753; hereinafter, ``the 20194(d) rule'') and ended the 
``blanket rule'' option for application of section 9 prohibitions to 
species newly listed as threatened after the effective date ofthose 
regulatory revisions (September 26, 2019). Blanket rules had extended 
the majority of the protections (all of the prohibitions that apply to 
endangered species under section 9 and additional exceptions to the 
prohibitions) to threatened species, unless we issued an alternative 
rule under section 4(d) of the Act for a particular species (i.e., a 
species-specific 4(d) rule). The blanket rule protections continued to 
apply to threatened species that were listed prior to September 26, 
2019, without an associated species-specific rule. Under the 2019 4(d) 
rule, the only way to apply protections to a species newly listed as 
threatened is forus to issue a species-specific rule settingout the 
protective regulations that are appropriate for that species. Our 
analysis for this decision applied our current regulations, portions of 
which were last revised in 2019. Given that we proposed further 
revisions to these regulations on June 22, 2023 (88 FR 40742; 88 FR 
40764), we have also undertaken an analysis of whether the decision 
would be different if we were to apply those proposed revisions. We 
concluded that the decision would have been the same if we had applied 
the proposed 2023 regulations. The analyses under both the regulations 
currently in effect and the regulations after incorporating the June 
22, 2023, proposed revisions are included in our decision file.
    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 influence 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. The determination to delist a 
species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
    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 have a direct impact on 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--considering 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, 
then analyze the cumulative effect of all the threats on the species. 
We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats considering 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 definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species only after conducting this 
cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species 
now and in the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be reclassified or delisted under the 
Act. It does, however, provide the scientific basis that informs our 
regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of 
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.

[[Page 15769]]

    To assess Florida golden aster viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate changes, pathogen). In general, species viability 
will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and 
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and 
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' 
viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history 
needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and 
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2019-0071 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.

Summary of SSA Analysis

    For a species to be viable there must be adequate redundancy 
(suitable number, distribution, and connectivity to allow the species 
to withstand catastrophic events), representation (genetic and 
environmental diversity to allow the species to adapt to changing 
environmental conditions), and resiliency (ability of a species to 
withstand unpredictable disturbance). Resiliency for Florida golden 
aster improves with maintained open habitat. Lambert and Menges (1996, 
pp. 121-137) recommend prescribed burning that mimics the historic burn 
pattern (frequent low-intensity fires in sandhill, less frequent burns 
in scrub, with fires primarily in late spring and summer) and periodic 
mechanical disturbance of the ground cover during late winter or early 
spring when seeds are dispersed. In the absence of fire, habitat 
openness can be maintained with mowing, hand removal of trees and 
shrubs near plants, or other mechanical treatments; populations have 
persisted along periodically mowed rights-of-way (e.g., underneath 
powerlines, along roads and railroads) for decades without a prescribed 
burn program. Populations must be suitably large and connected to 
provide a reservoir of individuals for cross-pollination, as plants 
will not self-fertilize, and to maintain levels of genetic diversity 
high enough to prevent harmful consequences from inbreeding depression 
and genetic drift (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 217-242). Redundancy 
improves with increasing numbers of populations, and connectivity 
(either natural or human-facilitated) allows connected populations to 
``rescue'' each other after catastrophes. Representation improves with 
increased genetic diversity and/or environmental conditions within and 
among populations.
    Viability of the Florida golden aster has been and will continue to 
be impacted both negatively and positively by anthropogenic and natural 
influences. Historically, the primary threats to the Florida golden 
aster were habitat loss (resulting from human development) and habitat 
degradation due to lack of adequate habitat management. As threats to 
habitat have been alleviated via habitat protection and management, 
recovery has been further bolstered by captive propagation followed by 
introduction into unoccupied sites.

Analysis of Threat Factors

Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the 
Species' Habitat or Range
    The main threat to this species at the time of listing was the 
destruction and modification of habitat. Habitat destruction, 
modification, and degradation on private lands and habitat degradation 
from lack of adequate habitat management on public lands remain the 
primary risk factor to the species. The five populations occurring on 
private lands remain subject to adverse human activity including 
dumping, off-road recreational vehicles use, and land clearing. 
However, these activities are no longer threats to the 25 populations 
on protected conservation lands because of controlled access and 
restricted use.
    Lack of management, especially the absence of periodic fire, 
historically led to habitat degradation throughout the species' range. 
The Florida golden aster occurs in open, sandy patches that 
historically were maintained by fire under natural conditions. Without 
naturally ignited fires or prescribed fire applications, the habitat 
becomes overgrown, resulting in unfavorable conditions for the species' 
persistence. Ideal habitat management is generally regarded as 
prescribed burning that mimics the historical burn patterns (frequent 
low-intensity fires in sandhill, less frequent burns in scrub, with 
fires primarily in late spring and summer) and periodic mechanical 
disturbance of the ground cover during late winter or early spring when 
seeds are dispersed (Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121-137). Initial 
burning to restore the openness of degraded habitat involves frequent 
intense fires, after which burning can be less intense and less 
frequent to simply maintain the habitat. Failing to maintain open scrub 
habitat can disrupt the Florida golden aster's reproduction, survival, 
and dispersal (Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121-137).
    As with habitat destruction and modification, this threat from lack 
of management remains a concern mainly on private, non-conservation 
lands. Populations that occur on conservation lands are often being 
managed to maintain optimal open scrub habitat. However, budget 
constraints, manageability, conflicting priorities, and other factors 
(weather, lack of equipment, staff shortages, etc.) may preclude proper 
management activities even on conservation lands. Additionally, 
proximity to urbanized areas can limit the number of days available for 
prescribed burns, and urbanization in the Tampa Bay area is increasing 
rapidly (Xian et al. 2005, pp. 920-928). To be optimal, burn days must 
have wind speeds and wind directions that do not unduly burden 
urbanized areas with smoke. For this reason, large rural tracts of 
habitat are easier to burn than small tracts tucked into developed 
areas. Increasing commercial and residential development could lead to 
further

[[Page 15770]]

decreases in the ability to conduct prescribed burning in the future, 
which may or may not be replaced with adequate habitat management by 
other means (e.g., mowing) that are more expensive than using fire. The 
type of development also factors into management ability and 
flexibility, with major roads, schools, hospitals, retirement homes 
(places with vulnerable populations) weighing more heavily on the 
decision of if/when to burn than other types of development (Camposano 
2018, pers. comm.).
    Since the time of listing, conservation efforts for the Florida 
golden aster and other scrub habitat species have reduced the threat of 
habitat destruction, modification, and degradation. These conservation 
efforts include acquiring properties where the species naturally 
occurs, introducing populations on conservation lands, and conducting 
habitat management on conservation lands (e.g., prescribed burning). 
While habitat destruction and modification may still occur on private 
lands, 83 percent of the sites are on public conservation lands and, 
therefore, for the most part, are adequately managed and protected. 
Land acquisitions and introductions have increased the number of 
established populations within the historical range and have resulted 
in the expansion of the species' known range. Further, although the 
species will be delisted under the Act on the effective date of this 
rule (see DATES, above), the Florida golden aster will remain listed as 
threatened under State laws. Based on the best available information, 
we conclude that resources for necessary management activities on 
conservation lands will continue.

Disease or Predation

    At the time of listing, grazing by domestic livestock was 
identified as a stressor because the species' populations were on 
private lands and many of the properties were in cattle production. 
However, at present, the 25 populations on conservation lands are not 
subject to any agriculture practices. No cattle grazing occurs on any 
of these properties. Therefore, we no longer consider grazing to be a 
threat.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    The Florida Administrative Code (FAC) chapter 5B-40 (Preservation 
of Native Flora of Florida) provides the Florida Department of 
Agriculture and Consumer Services limited authority to protect plants 
on State and private lands (primarily from the standpoint of illegal 
harvest). Florida golden aster is listed as an endangered plant under 
this statute, which requires anyone wishing to willfully harvest, 
collect, pick, remove, injure, or destroy any plant listed as 
endangered growing on the private land of another, or on any public 
land or water, to obtain the written permission of the owner of the 
land or water or his legal representative (FAC 5B-40.003(1)(a)). A 
permit is also required to transport for the purpose of sale, selling, 
or offering for sale any plant contained on the State's endangered 
plant list that is harvested from such person's own property (FAC 5B-
40.003(1)(c)). The delisting of the Florida golden aster under the Act 
will not affect this State listing.
    Several sites, consisting of thousands of plants, are now under 
county and State protection. Specifically, Hillsborough County has 
purchased considerable acreage through the Endangered Land Acquisition 
and Protection Program (ELAPP) that contains several large populations 
of Florida golden aster. In 1987, Hillsborough County passed the 
Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance that established the 
foundation for ELAPP. This applies to nine populations on six sites in 
Hillsborough County. In 1990, this ordinance was amended and approved 
for another 20 years by increasing county taxes to allow additional 
funds to acquire conservation lands. In November 2008, voters approved 
the issuance of up to $200 million in bonds for additional purchases.
    ELAPP has worked with the Southwest Florida Water Management 
District and Florida Forever to jointly fund the acquisition of lands. 
Some of this money is also used for ELAPP to actively manage their 
properties to benefit Florida golden aster. Therefore, we find that the 
existing regulatory mechanisms will provide sufficient protections to 
the species and habitat after delisting, especially on public lands 
with ordinance protection. Currently, 27 sites where the species occurs 
are subject to Florida State law. These State and local protections 
have proven effective. For example, prescribed burning will continue 
through the ELAPP. Although we acknowledge that this could change in 
the future, we do not anticipate any future changes to the 
implementation of these programs at this time.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence
    Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and 
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate 
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC). A recent compilation of climate change and its effects is 
available from reports of the IPCC (IPCC 2014, entire). The term 
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability 
of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) 
that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, 
whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or 
both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have 
direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, 
neutral, or negative and they may change over time, depending on the 
species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of 
interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat 
fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use 
our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including 
uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.
    The IPCC concluded that the climate system is warming (Pachauri et 
al. 2014, entire). Effects associated with changes in climate have been 
observed, including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread 
changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, and wind patterns and 
aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, 
heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (Pachauri et al. 
2014, entire). Species that are dependent on specialized habitat types, 
limited in distribution, or at the extreme periphery of their range may 
be most susceptible to the impacts of climate change (Byers and Norris 
2011, entire; Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193-210). However, while 
continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is 
unknown in many cases and could be affected by many factors (e.g., 
weather circulation patterns).
    According to the IPCC, most plant species cannot naturally shift 
their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and 
high projected rates of climate change on most landscapes (IPCC 2014, 
p. 13). Plant species with restricted ranges may experience population 
declines as a result of the effects of climate change. The concept of 
changing climate can be meaningfully assessed both by looking into the 
future and reviewing past changes.
    Using the National Climate Change Viewer and using greenhouse gas 
emission scenario (representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5), we 
calculated projected annual mean changes from 1981-2010 to those 
projected for 2025-2049 for maximum

[[Page 15771]]

temperature, precipitation, soil storage, and evaporative deficit in 
all counties where Florida golden aster occurs (Adler and Hostetler 
2017, entire). We also calculated projected annual mean changes for a 
more conservative greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP 4.5) using the 
same timeframes for maximum temperature, precipitation, soil storage, 
and evaporative deficit in all counties where Florida golden aster 
occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, entire). Based on these results, all 
5 counties within the range of Florida golden aster will be subjected 
to higher temperatures (annual mean increase of 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F) (RCP 4.5) or 2.9 [deg]F (RCP 8.5)) and slightly higher 
precipitation (annual mean increase of 0.1 inch per month (RCP 4.5) or 
0.2 inch per month (RCP 8.5)) in the period of 2025-2049 relative to 
the period of 1981-2010.
    Additionally, climate change will likely influence Florida golden 
aster into the future by affecting habitat suitability and the ability 
to manage habitat with prescribed fire. Species that are dependent on 
specialized habitat types, limited in distribution (e.g., Florida 
golden aster), or at the extreme periphery of their range may be most 
susceptible to the impacts of climate change (Byers and Norris 2011, 
entire; Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193-210). There is evidence that some 
terrestrial plant populations have been able to adapt and respond to 
changing climatic conditions (Franks et al. 2014, pp. 123-139). Both 
plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf size or phenology) and 
evolutionary (shift in allelic frequencies) responses to changes in 
climate have been detected. Given enough time, plants can alter their 
ranges, resulting in range shifts, reductions, or increases (Kelly and 
Goulden 2008, pp. 11823-11826; Loarie et al. 2008, p. 2502).
    The climate in the southeastern United States has warmed about 2 
[deg]F from a cool period in the 1960s and 1970s and is expected to 
continue to rise (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396-417). Projections for 
future precipitation trends in the Southeast are less certain than 
those for temperature, but suggest that overall annual precipitation 
will decrease, and that tropical storms will occur less frequently, but 
with more force (e.g., more category 4 and 5 hurricanes) than 
historical averages (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396-417). Climatic 
changes, including sea level rise (SLR) and shifts in seasonal 
precipitation, temperature, and storm cycles, are projected to impact 
the southeastern United States over the next century. Under both lower 
and higher emissions scenarios, temperatures are expected to increase 
(Carter et al. 2018, pp. 751-752), and climate change is expected to 
intensify the hydrologic cycle and increase the frequency and severity 
of extreme events like drought and heavy rainfall (Carter et al. 2018, 
p. 775). Increases in evaporation of moisture from soils and loss of 
water by plants in response to warmer temperatures are expected to 
contribute to increased frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts. 
Local sea level rise impacts depend not only on how much the ocean 
level itself is increasing, but also on land subsidence and/or changes 
in offshore currents (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396-417), and impacts on 
terrestrial ecosystems can occur via submergence of habitat during 
storm surges or permanently, saltwater intrusion into the water table, 
and erosion. Of the current populations of the Florida golden aster, 
only one (Fort De Soto County Park, Pinellas County) is directly 
vulnerable to inundation from 0.3 m of sea level rise, a reasonable 
estimate of sea level rise by 2050. Hotter and drier conditions in the 
future could lead to fewer days with optimal conditions for prescribed 
burning, which could lead to reduced habitat quality if land managers 
are unable to make up for the lack of burning with adequate mechanical 
treatment.
    It is possible that there will be increases in the number of 
lightning strikes and sizes and severities of resulting fires, which 
could have a positive or negative effect on specific Florida golden 
aster populations. Hurricanes similarly could have positive or negative 
effects on the species. Prolonged flooding could harm populations, but 
the mechanical disturbance of trees being uprooted from flood events 
could improve habitat for colonizing species like the Florida golden 
aster (Menges and Johnson 2017, pers. comm.).
    Other potential climate change effects include changes in 
temperature and precipitation. Projections for future precipitation 
trends in the Southeast are less certain than those for temperature but 
suggest that overall annual precipitation will decrease. Hotter and 
drier conditions may complicate the ability to manage Florida golden 
aster with prescribed fires. Some terrestrial plant populations have 
been able to adapt and respond to changing climatic conditions (Franks 
et al. 2014, entire). Both plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf size 
or phenology) and evolutionary (shift in allelic frequencies) responses 
to changes in climate have been detected. Both can occur rapidly and 
often simultaneously (Franks et al. 2014, entire). However, relatively 
few studies are available that (1) directly examine plant responses 
over time, (2) clearly demonstrate adaptation or the causal climatic 
driver of these responses, or (3) use quantitative methods to 
distinguish plastic versus evolutionary responses (Franks et al. 2014, 
entire).
    As noted earlier, only one population (Fort De Soto County Park, 
Pinellas County) is directly vulnerable to inundation from 0.3 meters 
of sea level rise, a reasonable estimate of sea level rise by 2050. 
Hotter and drier conditions in the future could lead to fewer days with 
optimal conditions for prescribed burning, which could lead to reduced 
habitat quality if land managers are unable to make up for the lack of 
burning with adequate mechanical treatment. It is possible that there 
will be increases in the number of lightning strikes and sizes and 
severities of resulting wildfires, which could have a positive or 
negative effect on specific Florida golden aster populations. 
Hurricanes similarly could have positive or negative effects on the 
species. Prolonged flooding could harm populations, but the mechanical 
disturbance of trees being uprooted could improve habitat for 
colonizing species like Florida golden aster (Menges and Johnson 2017, 
pers. comm.). We have no additional information or data regarding 
effects of climate change with respect to Florida golden aster 
populations into the future; further research will be helpful to 
determine how this species responds directly to changes in temperature 
and water availability. However, from the known and forecasted 
information, we anticipate that effects to Florida golden aster from 
climate change will be limited and will not rise to the level of a 
threat.
    Other influences not discussed in detail here, either because they 
are not thought to be a major threat or there is little information 
available, include invasive plant species like cogongrass (Imperata 
cylindrica), and future genetic consequences of small and/or 
translocated populations.

Synergistic Effects

    Many of the stressors discussed in this analysis could work in 
concert with each other and result in a cumulative adverse effect to 
Florida golden aster, e.g., one stressor may make the species more 
vulnerable to other threats.
    Synergistic interactions are possible between effects of climate 
change and effects of other threats, such as mowing, dumping, off-road 
recreational vehicle use, and land clearing. However, we currently do 
not have information to determine the likely effects of climate

[[Page 15772]]

change on interaction/competition between species, or on drought 
conditions. Uncertainty about how different plant species will respond 
under a changing climate makes projecting possible synergistic effects 
of climate change on Florida golden aster speculative. However, the 
increases documented in the number of populations since the species was 
listed do not indicate that cumulative effects of various activities 
and stressors are affecting the viability of the species at this time. 
Based on our analysis of future stressors, we do not anticipate that 
cumulative effects will affect the viability of the species in the 
foreseeable future. Likewise, climate change, as discussed above, with 
hotter and drier conditions can add additional complexity to future 
prescribed burns. Available habitat in those tracts that are easier to 
burn, or that can be managed by other methods (e.g., mechanical 
manipulation), will be sufficient. Similarly, most of the potential 
stressors we identified either have not occurred to the extent 
originally anticipated at the time of listing or are adequately managed 
as described above. In addition, we do not anticipate significant 
stressors to increase on publicly owned lands or lands that are managed 
for the species.

Current Condition

Delineating Populations

    For the SSA, we delineated populations using a 2-km separation 
distance rule based on species expert opinion, resulting in 30 
populations across five counties. This strategy differs from the 1-km 
separation distance rule that was used in the most recent 5-year 
review, which was based on NatureServe's default criteria for defining 
plant populations (NatureServe 2004, entire). The team of species 
experts providing input on the SSA suspected that 1 km is likely an 
underestimate of the distance that gene flow can regularly occur via 
pollination. While the exact insect pollinators of the Florida golden 
aster are not known, studies on multiple bee species (major plant and 
Chrysopsis pollinators) demonstrate foraging distances that regularly 
exceed 1 km (Greenleaf et al. 2007, pp. 289-296; Hagler et al. 2011, p. 
144).

Current Resiliency

    Resiliency refers to the ability of populations to withstand 
stochastic events, whether demographic, environmental, or 
anthropogenic. Populations with low resiliency are highly vulnerable to 
stochastic events and face a high risk of extirpation within the next 
few decades. Populations with moderate resiliency are less likely to be 
extirpated within the next few decades, but require additional growth 
(with help of regular habitat management and/or restoration) to become 
more self-sustaining and resilient to stochastic events. Populations 
with high resiliency are unlikely to be extirpated within the next 30 
years in the absence of catastrophes or significant declines in the 
quality of habitat management. Populations with very high resiliency 
are the most robust and resistant to stochastic fluctuations.
    In the SSA, we assessed resiliency for each population using three 
factors: (1) population size, (2) habitat protection, and (3) area of 
available habitat. Other factors were considered that likely contribute 
to population resiliency, but data were not available to assess them 
over all or most of the populations including certain explicit measures 
of habitat quality, fire management, existence of land management 
plans, and population trends. While some past survey data are available 
for many populations, species experts did not feel comfortable 
comparing population counts across time periods. In many cases, 
differences in population sizes were likely not a result of increasing 
populations, but rather of differences in survey methodology, number of 
surveyors, and/or areas searched (e.g., surveyors who were more likely 
to visit known patches and not find new patches; alternately, a bias 
toward larger counts over time as old patches are revisited and 
additional patches are found). Nevertheless, we are confident that 
these population data demonstrate resiliency of the species. 
Regardless, this species has not been extensively studied; therefore, 
there was some uncertainty in the SSA in precisely how these factors 
influenced Florida golden aster population resiliency.
Population Size
    Population size is both a direct contributor to resiliency and an 
indirect indicator of resiliency. Small populations are more 
susceptible to demographic and environmental stochastic events than 
larger populations. Small populations are also more likely to suffer 
from decreased fitness because of low genetic diversity from inbreeding 
or genetic drift (Willi et al. 2005, pp. 2255-2265). For Florida golden 
aster, large populations are more buffered from the effects of 
prescribed burning or other disturbances, which are necessary to 
maintain open habitat but can temporarily reduce population sizes by 
killing plants. Indirectly, large population sizes are likely 
indicative of other conditions that contribute to population 
resiliency. For example, in the SSA, we did not have adequate data to 
assess habitat quality and the quality of management at all the Florida 
golden aster populations; therefore, we assumed large population sizes 
likely generally reflect good habitat quality and management (among 
other factors) compared to smaller populations, although this 
assumption may not hold in all cases.
    We categorized populations into 4 size classes: fewer than 100 
individuals, 100-500 individuals, 501-1,000 individuals, and more than 
1,000 individuals. Each population size class was associated with one 
of the following baseline resiliency classes, respectively: low, 
moderate, high, and very high (explained further below).
    We chose the population size threshold between high and very high 
resiliency of 1,000 individuals because it is the typical population 
size used to rank element occurrences as having ``excellent viability'' 
and likely to persist for the next 20-30 years (NatureServe 2008, 
entire). This is a generic population size limit that was not 
specifically tailored to Florida golden aster with empirical data. 
Further support for using 1,000 individuals as the threshold for the 
highest resiliency category came from a study of 10-year extirpation 
rates for populations of varying sizes of eight short-lived plant 
species in Germany (Matthies et al. 2004, pp. 481-488). In this study, 
for seven of eight species, the probability of population persistence 
increased with population size, and all populations of more than 1,000 
individuals (flowering plants) persisted for the duration of the 10-
year study.
    We obtained the most recent size data for all 30 populations, with 
data collected as recently as 2018 for some populations, and none older 
than 2006 for any population. However, population sizes have 
undoubtedly changed since the most recent surveys, as populations 
fluctuate in response to management actions, time since management, 
environmental events, stochastic demographic processes, and so forth. 
Thus, the reported numbers reflect best available estimates for 
population sizes, rather than precise counts meant to represent actual 
current population sizes. According to the SSA report, population sizes 
include all plants counted, whether flowering or not. Survey data for 
some populations provide separate counts for each life stage, but for 
many populations, survey data are simply numbers with no information 
about whether that number

[[Page 15773]]

was only flowering plants, or all plants (Service 2018, p. 22). Using 
total plant numbers, and assuming that ambiguous counts are minimum 
counts of total plants in each population, we were conservative in our 
population counts. The alternative of assuming that ambiguous counts 
are of only flowering adult plants, when they may include basal 
rosettes, would inflate population sizes in cases where the assumption 
was wrong.
Habitat Protection
    Habitat was considered ``protected'' if it was acquired in fee 
simple and placed into long-term conservation by a nongovernmental, 
local, State, or Federal entity, or if there is a binding land 
agreement. Protected sites have management plans developed and being 
implemented. The effect of the degree of habitat protection on 
resiliency is discussed below.
Habitat Area Available
    Florida golden aster population sizes fluctuate and can occur in 
high densities in small patches of habitat. However, as a general rule 
of thumb for a given population size, a population covering a large 
area will be more resilient than a population covering a small area. A 
perturbation of the same size will have a proportionally larger effect 
on small-area populations than large-area populations. In assessing 
population resiliency, we considered the amount of habitat available 
rather than the amount of habitat occupied for two reasons. First, the 
amount of area occupied was very uncertain for most populations. 
Surveys are likely to return to known patches of the Florida golden 
aster, but new patches can be easily missed, and it is likely that the 
data we have underestimates the true amount of area occupied by the 
Florida golden aster. Adding to the uncertainty, the most current 
spatial data for some populations comes from 2006, and may no longer 
reflect the current distribution at those sites. Second, population 
footprints are not always static across available habitat; the Florida 
golden aster can spread into unoccupied areas as populations grow, or 
shift across a landscape as different areas become more or less 
suitable or both. For this reason, we used the amount of habitat 
available for populations to occupy currently, grow into, or shift into 
as a factor contributing to population resiliency. We identified 
available habitat within a 2-km radius around known occurrences, 
consistent with the assumption we made about pollinator movement when 
delineating populations. We characterize the available habitat for 
populations as small or large, with 14.2 hectares as the threshold 
between the two groups. This value was selected based on natural breaks 
in the data and expert input.

Classifying Resiliency Based on the Selected Factors

    Resiliency classes were based primarily on population size as 
described above, with four resiliency classes corresponding to four 
population size categories. Populations with fewer than 100 individuals 
were determined to have low resiliency. Within the three higher 
population size categories (100-500, 501-1,000, and more than 1,000 
plants), populations were assigned a baseline resiliency score 
associated with their population size (moderate, high, or very high, 
respectively). This baseline score could then be lowered by either of 
the two other factors, habitat protection and habitat area available; 
see table 1 below.

            Table 1--Strategy for Assigning Current Resiliency Scores to Populations of C. floridana
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Population size  (# plants)         Habitat protected      Habitat not protected    Habitat area available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<100................................                         Low                        Small.
                                                                                        Large.
                                     --------------------------------------------------
100-500.............................  Low....................  Low....................  Small.
                                      Moderate...............  Low....................  Large.
501-1,000...........................  Moderate...............  Moderate...............  Small.
                                      High...................  Moderate...............  Large.
>1,000..............................  High...................  High...................  Small.
                                      Very High..............  High...................  Large.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Populations that occur on non-protected lands were assigned to the 
resiliency class one step lower than they would if they were on 
protected lands. By doing this, we did not intend to discount the 
importance of populations on non-protected lands to the viability of 
the species or imply that owners of these parcels are managing the land 
poorly or are harming the Florida golden aster. Large populations of 
Florida golden aster can be supported on private lands. For example, 
when private landowners burn pasture to improve forage for cattle, they 
may improve habitat for Florida golden aster. However, even large 
populations of fire-adapted scrub plants can rapidly decline due to 
poor management (e.g., Polygal lewtonii, Weekley and Menges 2012, 
entire; Warea carteri, Quintana-Ascenscio et al. 2011, entire), and 
private lands that are not protected for conservation are at higher 
risk of changes in management or land use that could harm Florida 
golden aster populations. For populations that extend across property 
boundaries and contain individuals occurring on both protected and non-
protected lands, we used the protection status that applied to most 
individuals to classify the entire population.
    Populations occupying or surrounded by a small area of available 
habitat were assigned to the resiliency class one step lower than they 
would otherwise be assigned if they existed within a larger area of 
available habitat, as they are less able to withstand and recover from 
perturbations or shift across a landscape as habitat quality changes. 
For any populations experiencing both resiliency-reducing conditions 
(small habitat area on non-protected lands), the resiliency score was 
only reduced one step rather than being reduced twice (i.e., once for 
each condition). The Duette populations were the most recently 
introduced populations. They have been growing rapidly and are 
surrounded by ample habitat and little to no development; therefore, 
these two populations were projected to increase from high to very high 
resiliency.
    Summaries of the 30 delineated populations and their resiliency 
scores can be found in the SSA report (Service 2018, p. 32) and in 
table 2, below. In conclusion, resiliency scores remained stable.

[[Page 15774]]



           Table 2--Summary of Current Resiliency Scores by Protected Status for Florida Golden Aster
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Resiliency class                        All populations      Protected       Not protected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very High.................................................                 7                 7                 0
High......................................................                11                10                 1
Moderate..................................................                 6                 5                 1
Low.......................................................                 6                 3                 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Redundancy and Representation

    Redundancy for Florida golden aster is naturally low because it is 
an endemic species with a narrow range in Florida around the Tampa Bay 
region and Hardee County farther inland (with one population just 
across the border in Highlands County). The entire species' range spans 
five counties, with half of the populations occurring in Hillsborough 
County (see figure 2, below). The longest distance between two 
populations is 131 km. However, as this is a narrow-ranging endemic, 
the spatial distribution of populations across its range does confer a 
moderate amount of redundancy, defined as the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events. Catastrophic events could include, among 
others, fires occurring too frequently, droughts, disease outbreaks, or 
hurricanes with prolonged flooding, each of which have impacts at a 
different spatial scale. No information is known about seedbank 
resiliency in the soil for this species; without knowing this, it is 
difficult to predict long-term impacts of catastrophes.
    The 30 known populations are distributed in three main groupings. 
There are about 20-30 km between each of the groupings, providing a 
buffer around each that may protect them from catastrophic events 
affecting the others (e.g., disease outbreak, depending on transmission 
type and vectors). Within each geographic cluster, there are at least 
two highly or very highly resilient populations, which could serve as 
sources to naturally recolonize populations lost to catastrophic 
events. The Hardee-Highlands cluster has the lowest redundancy (two 
moderately resilient populations, six populations total) and is the 
most isolated from the other clusters. The Pinellas cluster has the 
next lowest redundancy of resilient populations (3 highly resilient 
populations, 4 populations total), and the Hillsborough-Manatee cluster 
has the highest redundancy (13 resilient populations, 20 populations 
total); see figure 2 below. Another factor contributing to redundancy 
is the wide range of property ownership; with so many managing 
entities, the species is buffered against poor management of any one 
entity (e.g., due to budget issues or changing priorities). Based on 
the spatial distribution of resilient populations managed by a variety 
of entities across a narrow range, current redundancy is considered 
qualitatively to be low to moderate. Rather than solely relying on this 
rather subjective classification in assessing the current viability of 
the species, characterizing current redundancy is most useful in 
comparison to redundancy under the future scenarios; see Future 
Conditions discussion below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR24.001


[[Page 15775]]


    Representative units for this species could not be defined based on 
available data, with representation defined as the ability of the 
species to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Species experts 
contributing to the SSA suspect that there might be representative 
units with different genetic adaptations associated with soil 
differences, elevation above the water table, fire regime, or habitat 
structure. However, there are no data currently to confirm or refute 
these hypotheses. Genetic studies have found little to no genetic 
clustering among populations, with 80 percent of observed genetic 
variation occurring within populations, and only 20 percent of the 
variation attributable to between-population differences (Markham 1998, 
p. 41). These results support the existence of a single representative 
unit for the species. However, that study did not examine genetic 
markers known to be associated with adaptive traits. Vital rates and 
morphology were observed to differ between individuals from different 
source populations that were grown at Bok Tower Gardens and introduced 
to other sites (Campbell 2008, entire). This observation provides 
evidence that there might be adaptive differences between different 
``types'' of the Florida golden aster across the species' range. 
However, without any firm evidence to define representative units, we 
refrain from doing so here. Future research on the Florida golden 
aster's genetics, life history, and habitat differences can provide a 
more definitive basis for defining representative units in future 
iterations of the SSA report.

Future Conditions

Analytical Framework

    For the SSA report, we developed three plausible future scenarios 
under which to capture the breadth of all likely future variability and 
assess the future viability of Florida golden aster in terms of 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Based on expert opinion, 
the lifespan of the Florida golden aster, ideal fire-return intervals 
(at least every 10 years), uncertainty about future conditions, and 
lack of knowledge about certain aspects of Florida golden aster 
ecology, we chose to project populations 20 years into the future under 
each scenario, although some of these projections could be reasonably 
expected to continue for some time after the 20 years. With 
approximately 30 years of real data and trends, we project that the 
same trends will continue. The three hypothetical future scenarios are 
Status Quo, Pessimistic, and Targeted Conservation.
    In considering development as a threat, we used the SLEUTH (Slope, 
Land use, Excluded, Urban, Transportation and Hillshade; Jantz et al. 
2010, p. 34:1-16) data sets from the years 2020 (closest to current 
year) and 2040 (closest to 20 years in the future), and examined the 
area predicted, with at least 80 percent probability, to be urbanized. 
Therefore, our assessment was both quantitative, calculating the area 
within the 5-km buffer surrounding each population that was urbanized 
at each time point, and qualitative, inspecting the distribution of 
urbanization and major roads within that area (e.g., is the 
urbanization concentrated to one side of the population or surrounding 
it).
    With both the quantitative and qualitative assessments, we 
categorized populations as having either low risk or high risk of 
development impacting management for Florida golden aster. We defined 
high risk of impacting management as greater than 50 percent chance of 
negatively impacting management, and less than 50 percent for low risk. 
Populations classified as having low risk from development averaged 7.9 
percent developed area within the 5-km buffer by 2040, with a range of 
0 to 39 percent developed. Populations classified as having high risk 
from development averaged 45.5 percent developed area within the same 
buffer, ranging from 23 to 85 percent. For three populations with a 
percent of developed area in the overlapping range between the two 
categories (23 to 39 percent developed), the deciding factor between 
low risk and high risk was the distribution of development and roads 
around the population.

Habitat Quantity

    Habitat quantity can be negatively impacted by development or land 
use change (particularly on private lands) or positively impacted by 
land acquisition, restoration, and introductions into unoccupied sites 
that already have presumably suitable habitat.

Habitat Quality

    Habitat quality is closely tied to active habitat management to 
maintain openness either by prescribed burning or by other types of 
management. In constructing our scenarios, we considered two avenues by 
which future habitat management can be influenced: (1) the level of 
habitat management effort and (2) the amount and type of development 
near the Florida golden aster populations (to the extent the 
development affects the ability to conduct management actions, such as 
prescribed burns). First, the managing entities can choose their 
desired level of management effort by implementing (or not) a 
management plan or by allocating funding or personnel to or away from 
habitat management among competing priorities and limited resources. 
For our scenarios, we allowed for three levels of habitat management 
effort by managing entities. The first was management for stability, a 
moderate level of management that would be expected to maintain 
populations at their current size. The other two management levels were 
an increase, or a decrease, compared to management for stability. An 
increase in management effort would be expected to grow populations, 
while a decrease in management would be expected to result in 
population declines.
    The second avenue by which future habitat management can be 
influenced is development, particularly major roads and types of 
development associated with ``vulnerable'' human populations (e.g., 
schools, hospitals). This kind of development surrounding habitat 
limits management via prescribed burns by limiting the days that burns 
can take place--weather conditions must align to ensure proper smoke 
management. For example, if a population is surrounded by nearby 
development to the north and west, it can only be burned when the wind 
is blowing to the south and east. As more development surrounds 
populations, there is less flexibility for prescribed burns. However, 
the appropriate radius around populations within which development 
might impact management ranges from 0.8 km up to 8.0 km as the 
appropriate radius depends on a variety of factors for each burn, 
including the type of development, temperature, humidity, wind 
conditions, size of the planned burn, risk tolerance of those 
implementing the burn, and other factors. For the SSA, we chose an 
intermediate value, 5 km, in which to examine current and predicted 
future development. In choosing this concrete value, we acknowledged 
that this number is quite variable, and some burns will need to 
consider areas greater or less than 5 km away, but this value allowed 
us to gain a general understanding of the risks of development on 
managing surrounding populations.
    Within a 5-km radius around the Florida golden aster occurrences, 
we used geographic information systems (GIS) to examine current and 
projected urbanization and roads. Urbanization data came from the 
SLEUTH model, and road data were available from the

[[Page 15776]]

Florida Department of Transportation. The SLEUTH model has previously 
been used to predict probabilities of urbanization across the 
southeastern United States in 10-year increments, and the resulting GIS 
data are freely available (Belyea and Terrando 2013, entire). For our 
20-year future projection, we used the SLEUTH data sets from the years 
2020 and 2040, and examined the area predicted, with at least 80 
percent probability, to be urbanized. Our assessment was both 
quantitative, calculating the area within the 5-km buffer surrounding 
each population that was urbanized at each time point, and qualitative, 
inspecting the distribution of urbanization and major roads within that 
area (e.g., is the urbanization concentrated to one side of the 
population or surrounding it?). With this quantitative and qualitative 
assessment, we categorized populations as having either a low risk or a 
high risk of development impacting the ability to manage the 
population.
    These two aspects of future management, (1) management resources 
and willingness of the entity to manage, and (2) impacts of surrounding 
development on management, interacted in our future scenarios in the 
following way: with decreases in management effort (compared to 
management for stable populations), population resiliency decreased one 
level. With management for stability, population resiliency stayed the 
same as the current condition resiliency when there was low risk of 
development impacts; but where there was a high risk, resiliency 
decreased one level, reflecting that management will be more 
challenging with higher risk from development. With increases in 
management effort, population resiliency increased when there was low 
risk of development impacts, but stayed the same when there was a high 
risk; the increased management effort canceled out the increased risk 
caused by development.

Future Scenarios

Status Quo
    Under the Status Quo scenario, no new protected areas were acquired 
and no new populations were introduced. Management efforts for all 
populations were maintained at current levels, assuming that the 
ability to manage would not be hampered climate change or other 
factors. This scenario also assumes that conservation commitments 
outlined in management plans currently being implemented will continue. 
Of the introductions since 2008, all have more than 1,000 plants except 
for the two populations at Duette Preserve (North and South).
Pessimistic
    Under the Pessimistic scenario, management effort on all 
populations decreased, resulting in a drop in resiliency scores across 
the board. Additionally, based on uncertainty in whether populations on 
non-protected lands would continue to be managed in a way that is 
compatible with continued Florida golden aster persistence, in this 
scenario all populations on non-protected lands were assumed to be lost 
due to presumed land use or management change. As with the Status Quo 
scenario, no new protected areas were acquired, and no new populations 
were introduced.
Targeted Conservation
    Under the Targeted Conservation scenario, populations with high and 
very high resiliency were managed to maintain their rank. In cases 
where populations had a high risk of development limiting the ability 
to manage, this goal involved an increase in management effort compared 
to what would be needed to maintain the same level of resiliency for a 
population with a low risk of development impacts. Populations with 
currently moderate resiliency on protected lands received management 
effort increases to either move them into the high resiliency class 
(low risk from development) or maintain moderate resiliency (high risk 
from development). Conservation resources were steered towards 
maintaining and growing these larger populations, and not as much 
towards rescuing populations that currently have low resiliency. 
Additionally, five new sites were selected across the species' range in 
which to introduce new populations, thus improving species redundancy.
Likelihood of Scenarios
    Of these three scenarios, the Status Quo scenario is the most 
likely to occur, although the Targeted Conservation scenario represents 
a likely future if both habitat-focused management (prescribed burning 
and mechanical or manual habitat management) by a variety of partners/
managing entities and species-specific conservation (captive 
propagation and introductions) are prioritized and well-funded. The 
Pessimistic scenario was unlikely; given that Florida golden aster 
populations span so many different ownerships, it is unlikely that all 
the different managing entities will develop the land especially when 
there are other co-occurring endangered, threatened, and candidate 
species occupying the same habitat (e.g., Florida scrub-jay, Aphelocoma 
coerulescens; eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon couperi;. The Targeted 
Conservation scenario was not likely with current conservation 
resources but, as noted above, could reflect a likely future if the 
needed management and conservation actions are prioritized and well-
funded.

Future Resiliency

    Future (20 years) resiliency of Florida golden aster populations 
under three scenarios is summarized in the SSA report (Service 2018, p. 
49), and is presented below in table 3. As implied by the scenario 
name, resiliency of populations under the Pessimistic scenario was 
predicted to be poor, with only 7 highly resilient populations, a 
decrease from 18 currently highly or very highly resilient populations. 
Under the Status Quo scenario, we expect resiliency to drop to 12 
highly or very highly resilient populations due solely to the effect of 
development limiting the ability to adequately manage habitat. Under 
the Targeted Management scenario, focused management and conservation 
efforts to counteract detrimental effects of urbanization, the growth 
of existing populations, and the introduction of new populations are 
expected to result in significant gains in resilient populations, with 
an increase from 18 to 27 highly or very highly resilient populations 
expected highly or very highly resilient populations.

[[Page 15777]]



  Table 3--Summary of Resiliency Scores Tallied Across All Populations of Florida Golden Aster for the Current
    Condition and Future Condition Under Three Hypothetical Scenarios: Status Quo, Pessimistic, and Targeted
                                                  Conservation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Targeted
                Resiliency class                      Current       Status quo      Pessimistic    conservation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very High.......................................               7               4               0               9
High............................................              11               8               7              18
Moderate........................................               6              11              11               2
Low.............................................               6               3               5               2
Likely Extirpated...............................               0               4               7               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Future Redundancy and Representation

    Redundancy 20 years in the future was expected to decrease compared 
to current condition under the Status Quo and Pessimistic Scenarios. In 
all scenarios, the majority of highly and very highly resilient 
populations were found in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. All 
redundancy of highly resilient populations in Pinellas County and the 
Hardee and Highlands Counties cluster is lost under the Pessimistic 
scenario. In the Status Quo scenario, where drops in resiliency were 
due to development risks to management, no highly resilient populations 
remained in the heavily urbanized Pinellas County. Even in the Targeted 
Conservation scenario, redundancy within Pinellas County did not 
improve, but both the number and distribution of highly resilient 
populations in the other two clusters did improve. We did not assess 
representation in the future due to a present lack of information 
needed to delineate representative units.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of 
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that 
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Florida Administrative Code 5B-40 (Preservation of Native Flora 
of Florida) provides the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
Services (FDACS) limited authority to protect plants on State and 
private lands (primarily from the standpoint of illegal harvest). 
Florida golden aster is listed as an Endangered Plant under this 
statute, which requires anyone wishing to ``willfully harvest, collect, 
pick, remove, injure, or destroy any plant listed as endangered growing 
on the private land of another or on any public land or water'' to 
``obtain the written permission of the owner of the land or water or 
his legal representative'' (FAC 5B-40.003(1)(a)). A permit is also 
required to transport ``for the purpose of sale, selling, or offering 
for sale any plant contained on the endangered plant list which is 
harvested from such person's own property'' (FAC 5B-40.003(1)(c)).
    There are now several sites and thousands of plants under county 
and State protection. Specifically, Hillsborough County has purchased 
considerable acreage through the Endangered Land Acquisition and 
Protection Program that contain several large populations. Golden aster 
is also documented at Lake Manatee State Recreation Area and Little 
Manatee River State Park in Manatee and Hillsborough Counties. 
Currently, 27 sites where the species occurs are subject to State laws.

Determination of Florida Golden Aster's 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 an endangered species or a 
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 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.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we find that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of Florida golden aster habitat (Factor 
A), which was the basis for listing the species, is no longer a threat. 
At the time of listing, Florida golden aster was thought to persist 
only in Hillsborough County. Now, the species is known to occur in four 
additional counties: Hardee, Highlands, Mantee, and Pinellas Counties. 
While destruction and modification of habitat is still the primary 
threat to the species, the magnitude of this threat has been greatly 
reduced since listing. Further, the number of populations has 
increased. Under the recovery plan for the species, delisting could be 
considered if 20 populations were secured. The number of known extant 
populations has increased from 9 in 1986 to 30 in 2017 because of 
additional surveys, habitat restoration, and outplanting within the 
historical range of the species. Of those 30 populations, 25 
populations are located on protected conservation lands, and 22 of 
those 25 populations have been determined to have at least moderate 
resiliency. We expect current levels of management to continue these 
conservation lands at these locations, and we anticipate the number of 
individuals within the populations to increase.
    For the determination of whether the species is likely be become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all its range, and 
thus meet the Act's definition of a threatened species, we considered 
the ``foreseeable future'' to be 20 years into the future under the 
three hypothetical future scenarios. Our SLEUTH tool projected future 
possible development to 20 years, NatureServ

[[Page 15778]]

considers large population sizes likely to persist over the next 20-30 
years, and considerations of climate change make projections beyond 20 
to 30 years much more speculative. Also, given the average lifespan of 
the species (approximately 3-5 years), a period of 20 to 30 years 
allows for multiple generations and detection of any population 
changes. Under all three scenarios evaluated, the Florida golden aster 
is expected to continue to persist across its currently known range. 
Under the Status Quo scenario, which is also the most likely to occur, 
12 populations are projected to be highly or very highly resiliency and 
11 moderately resilient across all three geographic clusters, as 
habitat modification is no longer a threat for the populations on 
protected lands and current management of those lands is expected to 
continue. Four populations (three natural and one introduced) currently 
in low condition are projected to become extirpated in the Status Quo 
scenario. Even under the Pessimistic scenario, which is least likely to 
occur, 7 populations are projected to be in high condition and 11 in 
moderate condition, all of which occur on protected lands with 
conservation management expected to continue at some level. Given that 
most populations projected to remain extant with at least moderate 
resiliency are on protected lands managed for scrub habitat, it is 
unlikely the species will become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all its range. Thus, after assessing the best 
available information, we conclude that the Florida golden aster is not 
in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future throughout all 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 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. Having determined that the Florida golden aster is not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is 
any portion of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) 
the portion is significant, and (2) the species is in danger of 
extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future 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.
    For Florida golden aster, we chose to evaluate the status question 
first. We began by identifying portions of the range where the 
biological status of the species may be different from its biological 
status elsewhere in its range. For this purpose, we considered 
information pertaining to the geographic distribution of individuals of 
the species, the threats that the species faces, and the resiliency 
condition of populations.
    We evaluated the range of the Florida golden aster to determine if 
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of 
a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' 
range that may meet the Act's definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. For the Florida golden aster, we considered whether 
the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any 
biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in other 
portions such that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely 
to become so within the foreseeable future in that portion.
    We examined the following threats: development and climate change, 
including cumulative effects. Currently, there are 30 known extant 
Florida golden aster populations occurring in five counties 
(Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas, Highlands, and Hardee Counties), with 
25 of these populations occurring on conservation lands (Federal, 
State, and conservation easements). Climate change, as discussed above, 
is uniformly acting upon the species across its range, except for sea 
level rise, which would only potentially affect one population at Fort 
De Soto County Park in Pinellas County. As this would potentially 
impact just a single population out of 30 populations, we do not 
consider this concentration of threats to be at a biologically 
meaningful scale.
    Although development is currently concentrated in Pinellas County, 
that activity would negatively impact in the foreseeable future only 
five populations that occur on private lands or along roadways or 
railroad lines. However, two of these populations have high and 
moderate resiliency (the remaining three populations have low 
resiliency), and this pattern will continue in the future. The Pinellas 
County populations are currently in low condition, and some may become 
extirpated within the foreseeable future due to development. Therefore, 
our examination leads us to find that there is substantial information 
that the Pinellas County populations may become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future.
    We then proceeded to consider whether this portion of the range 
(i.e., the Pinellas County populations) is significant. For the 
purposes of this analysis, the Service is considering significant 
portions of the range by applying any reasonable definition of 
``significant.'' We assessed whether any portions of the range may be 
biologically meaningful in terms of the resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation of the entity being evaluated. This approach is 
consistent with the Act, our implementing regulations, our policies, 
and case law.
    Currently, the Pinellas County populations represent a small 
portion (less than 10 percent based on current extant populations) of 
the species' range, which is not a large geographic area relative to 
the range of the species. Further, these populations were all 
introduced after listing (i.e., they are not naturally occurring 
populations) and are not contributing much to the viability of the 
species. This portion does not contribute high-quality habitat or 
constitute high-value habitat for the species. In addition, this 
portion does not constitute an area of habitat that is essential to a 
specific life-history function for the species that is not found in the 
remainder of the range. Therefore, this area does not represent a 
significant portion of the species' range.
    Accordingly, we find that the Florida golden aster is not in danger 
of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future 
in any significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with 
the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 
321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 
2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the 
aspects 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), including the definition of ``significant,'' that 
those court decisions held to be invalid.

[[Page 15779]]

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial data 
available indicates that the Florida golden aster does not meet the 
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in 
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with 
our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2) currently in effect, Florida 
golden aster does not meet the definition of an endangered or threated 
species. Therefore, we are removing the Florida golden aster from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Effects of This Final Rule

    This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) by removing the Florida 
golden aster from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 
On the effective date of this rule (see DATES, above), the prohibitions 
and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through 
sections 7 and 9, will no longer apply to the Florida golden aster. 
Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult with the Service 
under section 7 of the Act if activities they authorize, fund, or carry 
out may affect the Florida golden aster. There is no critical habitat 
designated for this species, so this rule does not affect 50 CFR 17.96.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species that have been recovered. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) 
refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due 
to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the 
protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to 
monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and 
if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that 
proposing it as an endangered or threatened species is not again 
needed. If at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that 
protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate 
listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
    We have prepared a PDM plan for Florida golden aster. The PDM plan: 
(1) summarizes the status of Florida golden aster at the time of 
proposed delisting; (2) describes frequency and duration of monitoring; 
(3) discusses monitoring methods and potential sampling regimes; (4) 
defines what potential triggers will be evaluated to address the need 
for additional monitoring; (5) outlines reporting requirements and 
procedures; (6) proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and 
(7) defines responsibilities.
    We made the draft PDM plan available for public comments with the 
proposed rule published on June 24, 2021 (86 FR 33177). We did not 
receive any comments on the draft PDM plan; therefore, we are adopting 
the draft plan as the final plan. The final PDM plan for the species 
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0071. It is our intent to work closely with our partners towards 
maintaining the recovered status of the Florida golden aster.

Required Determinations

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 
1994(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretary's 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 final rule because no Tribal lands, sacred sites, 
or resources will be affected by the removal of the Florida golden 
aster from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071 and 
upon request from the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are staff members of the 
Service's Species Assessment Team and the Florida Ecological Services 
Field 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 amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants by removing the entry for ``Chrysopsis floridana'' 
under Flowering Plants.

Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-04278 Filed 3-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P