[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