Proposed Rule2021-12741
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Chrysopsis floridana (Florida Golden Aster) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 24, 2021
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to remove the Florida golden aster (Chrysopsis floridana), a short-lived perennial, from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (List) due to recovery (delist). This determination is based on our evaluation of the best available scientific and commercial information, which 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 a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If this proposal is finalized, the Florida golden aster will be removed from the List.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33177-33191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12741]
[[Page 33177]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201]
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: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the Florida golden aster (Chrysopsis floridana), a short-lived
perennial, from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
(List) due to recovery (delist). This determination is based on our
evaluation of the best available scientific and commercial information,
which 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 a threatened or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If this proposal is
finalized, the Florida golden aster will be removed from the List.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
August 23, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by August 9, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rules box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: JAO (PRB/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
Document availability: The proposed rule and supporting documents
(including the Species Status Assessment (SSA), post delisting
monitoring plan, list of references cited, and 5-year review) are
available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0071. We will notify the public on our website, <a href="https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/">https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/</a>, when these documents are available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, North Florida Ecological Services Field
Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, FL 32256; telephone 722-469-
4251. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments on:
(1) Information concerning the biology and ecology of the Florida
golden aster;
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the
Florida golden aster, particularly any data on the possible effects of
climate change as it relates to habitat, the extent of State
protection, and management that would be provided to this plant as a
delisted species;
(3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the Florida golden aster that may negatively impact or benefit the
species; and
(4) Any new information about this species and threats from
invasive plants.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Supporting Documents
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. The SSA report
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the species, including the
[[Page 33178]]
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting the species.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994), our August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on the Peer
Review Process, and the Office of Management and Budget's December 16,
2004, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (revised June
2012), we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information
contained in the Florida golden aster SSA report. We sent the SSA
report to six independent peer reviewers and received two responses.
Results of this structured peer review process can be found at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/">https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/</a>. The SSA report was also submitted to our
Federal, State, and Tribal partners for scientific review. We received
review from two partners (Sheryl Bowman, Environmental Lands Management
Coordinator, Hillsborough County, Lake Frances Field Office and
Jennifer Possley, Conservation Team Leader/Field Biologist, Fairchild
Tropical Botanic Garden). In preparing this proposed rule, we
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the
final SSA report.
Previous Federal Actions
The Florida golden aster was listed as endangered on May 16, 1986
(51 FR 17974), under the Act. On August 29, 1988, we released a
recovery plan for the Florida golden aster. The recovery plan suggested
that we consider the species for reclassification to threatened status
when 10 geographically distinct self-sustaining populations of the
plant are protected in Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas
Counties, Florida. The latest 5-year review, completed March 20, 2017,
indicated that the species' status was improving, assigned a Recovery
Priority Number of 8 (indicating moderate degree of threat and high
recovery potential), and recommended downlisting to threatened. The
Service initiated the Florida golden aster SSA (see above) to aid in
determining the appropriateness of reclassifying the species.
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and
overall viability of the Florida golden aster is presented in the SSA
report (USFWS 2018, available at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/southeast/">https://www.fws.gov/southeast/</a>). 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 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 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 development 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, nine known
extant populations of the species occurred in five locations, all
coastal, in southeastern Hillsborough County (Wunderlin et al. 1981,
entire). Since listing of the species, increased survey efforts have
resulted in the discovery of additional populations, including
occurrences further 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, Highlands--1, Hillsborough--16, Manatee--5, and
Pinellas--4). Populations were delineated using a 2-kilometers (km)
separation distance between occurrences (see Current Condition, below,
for more information). Of these, 25 populations occur entirely or
mostly on 22 protected sites, meaning a site that has been acquired in
fee simple and placed into long-term conservation, or a conservation
easement or other binding land agreement by the site owner that shows a
commitment to its conservation in perpetuity. In addition, all 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. The remaining five extant populations occur on
private lands or along roadways or railroad lines.
The most recent surveys showed that just over half of the Florida
golden aster individuals occurred in nine introduced populations at
eight sites. The earliest introductions took place in 1986; of those 10
introduced populations, 3 are still extant in Hardee and Manatee
Counties, while 7 others in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties failed.
Introductions were again initiated during 2008-2013, when Bok Tower
Gardens introduced 6 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). All 6 populations had
reached sizes >1,000 plants except for the populations at Duette
Preserve (2 populations, North and South). However, given that the
Duette populations were the most recently introduced populations
(2013), have been growing rapidly, and are surrounded by ample habitat
and little to no development, they should also reach sizes comparable
to the other introduced populations.
According to the most recent surveys, approximately 50,000
individuals exist with over 90 percent occurring in the 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 differently by various
biologists for different purposes. 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.
[[Page 33179]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN21.002
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
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 is 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 any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects. We consider these same five
factors in reclassifying a species from endangered to threatened, and
in delisting a species (50 CFR 424.11(c)-(e)).
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--in light of 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 of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary of the Interior
determines whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered
species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after the Service conducts
this cumulative analysis and describes 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.
[[Page 33180]]
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.
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 supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years); redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. 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 evaluate an individual species' life-history
needs. During the next stage, we assess the historical and current
condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics,
including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current
condition. In the final stage, we make predictions about the species'
responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic
influences. Throughout all of these stages, we use 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.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species because of any factors affecting its
continued existence. The following is a summary of the key results and
conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found on
the Southeast Region website at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/southeast/">https://www.fws.gov/southeast/</a> and at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071.
Summary of SSA Analysis
As described above, 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) 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 right of ways (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 to cross-pollinate with, 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). 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.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its
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
mowing, dumping, off-road recreational vehicles use, and land clearing.
However, these activities are no longer threats to the 25 populations
on public 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
[[Page 33181]]
burning can be less intense and frequent to simply maintain the
habitat. Failing to maintain open scrub habitat can disrupt Florida
golden aster reproduction, survival, and dispersal (Lambert and Menges
1996, pp. 121-137).
As with habitat destruction and modification, this threat remains a
concern mainly on private and non-conservation lands. Populations that
occur on public 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 development could
lead to further 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 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
ongoing 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, if this
rulemaking process results in the species being delisted, it will
remain listed as threatened under State laws. The State will develop a
management plan and regulatory guidelines to monitor the species. Based
on the best available information, we conclude that resources for
necessary management activities on conservation lands will continue.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
At the time of listing, this species was not known to be threatened
by commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational uses. This
factor of the listing process continues not to be a threat to the
Florida golden aster at this time.
Disease or Predation
Grazing by domestic livestock was initially identified as a
stressor because the 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. As to
the populations on private lands, acquisition of scrub habitat
containing Florida golden aster in Hardee County would allow proper
management of these tracts, as has been initiated on public lands in
Hillsborough County. Because Hardee County has extensive areas of
improved pasture and unimproved pasture, we will assess the effect of
cattle grazing on Florida golden aster habitat. Based on the
information obtained from this assessment, we will be able to provide
management recommendations to cattle ranchers to protect Florida golden
aster on private property (Bok Tower Gardens 2020, p. 879). Therefore,
we no longer consider grazing to be a threat.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Florida Administrative Code 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 endangered plant list which 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.
A number of 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), which contains several large
populations. In 1987, Hillsborough County passed the Environmentally
Sensitive Lands Ordinance that established the foundation for ELAPP.
This program 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 would 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 Its 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
[[Page 33182]]
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. The magnitude and rate of change 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 greenhouse gas
emission scenario Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, we
calculated projected annual mean changes in the period 1981-2010 to
those projected for 2025-2049 for maximum 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 13 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)) 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 are, but suggest that overall annual
precipitation will decrease, and that tropical storms will occur less
frequently, but with more force (more category 4 and 5 hurricanes) than
historical averages (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396-417). Sea levels are
expected to rise globally, potentially exceeding 1 m of sea level rise
by 2100 (Reynolds et al. 2012, entire). 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, salt
water 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
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 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, pers. comm. 2017).
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. 2013, 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. 2013, 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. 2013,
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. We
have no additional information or data regarding effects of climate
change with respect to the 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 this 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.
[[Page 33183]]
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 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, and 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 in this proposal to delist the species. 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 5 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 distances 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: Population size, habitat protection, and 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 this population
data demonstrates 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 the 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 as a result 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 reflected good habitat quality and management (among
other factors) compared to smaller populations, though this assumption
may not hold in all cases.
We categorized populations into 4 size classes: <100 individuals,
100-500 individuals, 501-1,000 individuals, and >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 8 short-lived plant species
in Germany (Matthies et al. 2004, pp. 481-488). In this study, for 7 of
8 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.
[[Page 33184]]
We obtained the most recent size data for all 30 populations, with
data collected as recently as 2018 for some populations, and no older
than 2006 for any population. Population sizes have undoubtedly changed
since the last surveys for those populations that have not been
surveyed as recently, as populations fluctuate in response to
management actions, time since management, environmental events,
stochastic demographic processes, etc. 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, population sizes included all plants counted,
whether flowering or not. Survey data for some populations provided
separate counts for each life stage, but for many populations, survey
data were simply numbers with no information about whether that number
was only flowering plants, or all plants (USFWS 2017, p. 22). Using
total plant numbers, and assuming that ambiguous counts were minimum
counts of total plants in each population, we were conservative in our
population counts. The alternative of assuming that ambiguous counts
were of only flowering adult plants, when they may have included 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 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
The 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 had underestimates the true amount of area
occupied by the Florida golden aster. Adding to the uncertainty, the
most current spatial data for some populations came 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 characterized 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 >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 (Table 1).
Table 1--Strategy for Assigning Current Resiliency Scores to Populations of Florida Golden Aster
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 mean 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
these 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 the
majority of 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 if they existed within a larger area of available habitat, as
they are less able to withstand and
[[Page 33185]]
recover from perturbations or shift across a landscape as habitat
quality changes. For any populations experiencing both of these
resiliency-reducing conditions (small habitat area on non-protected
lands), their resiliency score was only reduced one step rather than
being reduced twice, once for each factor. The Duette populations were
the most recently introduced populations (2013). 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 and in Table 2, below. In conclusion,
resiliency scores remained stable.
Table 2--Summary of Current Resiliency Scores by Protected Status for Florida Golden Aster
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All
Resiliency class 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 around the Tampa Bay region in
Florida 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 (Figure 2). 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, too frequent fires, 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 3 main groupings. There
is 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).
Another factor contributing to redundancy is the wide range of property
ownership; with so many managing entities, the species as a whole 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.
[[Page 33186]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN21.003
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). 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). 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 genetics and life
history and habitat differences can provide a more definitive basis for
defining representative units in future iterations of the SSA.
Future Condition--Analytical Framework
For the SSA, 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 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 into the future for about 20 to 30 years. The
three hypothetical future scenarios are Status Quo, Pessimistic, and
Targeted Conservation.
In considering development as a threat, for our 20-year future
projection 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 and 2040 and examined the area predicted, with at
least 80 percent probability, to be urbanized. The most important
factors identified by species experts to consider into the future were
habitat quantity and quality.
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
completely 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 >50 percent chance of negatively
impacting management, and <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
[[Page 33187]]
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, the level of habitat
management effort and 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 have to 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 in reality 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 was available from the 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 completely
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 Condition--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 by funding or political issues,
climate change, or other factors. As discussed above, currently there
are 30 known extant populations, natural and introduced, occurring in 5
counties (Hardee, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas). Of
these, 25 populations occur entirely or mostly on 22 protected sites,
``protected'' referring to a site that was acquired in fee simple and
placed into long-term conservation by a nongovernmental, local, State,
or Federal entity, or a conservation easement or other binding land
agreement by the site owner that shows a commitment to its conservation
in perpetuity, and this scenario assumes that that commitment will be
honored. Of the introductions since 2008, all had reached sizes >1,000
plants except for the populations at Duette Preserve (2 populations,
North and South).
Pessimistic
Under the Pessimistic scenario, management effort on all
populations decreased, presumably as an effect of a wide-scale change
in priorities or resources, 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
[[Page 33188]]
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 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
of the different managing entities will develop the land especially
when there are other co-occurring threatened, endangered, and candidate
species occupying the same habitat (e.g., Florida scrub-jay, Aphelocoma
coerulescens; eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon couperi; gopher
tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus). The Targeted Conservation scenario was
not likely with current conservation resources, but could reflect a
likely future if both habitat-focused management (e.g., prescribed
burning) by a variety of partners/managing entities and species-
specific conservation (e.g., captive propagation and introductions) are
prioritized and well-funded.
Future Resiliency
Future (20 years) resiliency of Florida golden aster populations
under three scenarios was summarized in the SSA (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 expected
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 Conservation scenario,
focused management and conservation efforts to counteract detrimental
effects of urbanization, grow existing populations, and introduce new
populations were expected to result in significant gains in resilient
populations, with an increase from 18 to 27 highly or very highly
resilient populations expected.
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............................... NA 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.
As in the Current Condition section of this preamble, we did not
assess representation in the future due to a present lack of
information needed to delineate representative units.
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. Recovery plans must, to the
maximum extent practicable, include ``objective, measurable criteria
which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with
the provisions [of section 4 of the Act], that the species be removed
from the list.''
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
[[Page 33189]]
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
The recovery plan for the Florida golden aster was issued by the
Service 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
plan called for establishment of new populations of the species.
Reclassification of this species to threatened could be considered if
10 geographically distinct populations were established in its 3 native
counties. Delisting could be considered if 20 such populations were
secured (USFWS 1988, p. 3). Currently, Florida golden aster occurs in
30 geographically distinct populations across 5 counties, and 18 of
these populations are high or very high resiliency, as consistent with
delisting criteria (see Table 2 in discussion above).
Determination of Florida Golden Aster Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a threatened species as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' For a more detailed discussion on the factors considered when
determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species and our analysis on how we determine
the foreseeable future in making these decisions, please see Analytical
Framework, above.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under section 4(a)(1) factors, we find
that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its 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, its magnitude has
been greatly reduced since listing. Further, under the recovery plan
for the species, delisting could be considered if 20 populations were
secured. The number of known extant populations (NatureServe 2004) has
increased from 9 (1986) to 30 (2017) as a result of additional surveys,
habitat restoration, and outplanting within the historical range of the
species. Of those 30 populations, 25 are located on protected
conservation lands, 22 of which have been determined to have at least
moderate resiliency. We expect current levels of management to continue
on these conservation lands at these locations and anticipate the
number of individuals within the populations to increase. Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Florida
golden aster no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered
species.
For the determination of whether the species is likely be become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range,
and thus meet the definition of a threatened species, we considered the
``foreseeable future'' as 20 years into the future under the three
hypothetical future scenarios. Under all three scenarios evaluated,
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 high/very high
resiliency and 11 moderate--across all 3 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 (3 natural and 1 introduced), currently in
low condition are projected to become extirpated. 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 on
protected lands with conservation management expected to continue at
some level. Given that the majority of populations projected to remain
extant, and with at least moderate resiliency, at the end of the
projection period are on protected lands managed for scrub habitat, it
is unlikely the species will become endangered in the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Because we have determined that the species is not in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we will consider whether there are any
significant portions of its range in which the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future--that is,
whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1)
the portion is significant; and, (2) the species is in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so in 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.
Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative
answer with respect to the first question for a certain portion of the
species' range, 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
(i.e., identifying portions where Florida golden aster may be in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future) first.
We considered whether the threats are geographically concentrated in
any portion of the species' range at a biologically meaningful scale
now or in the foreseeable future. We examined the following threats:
Development and climate change, including cumulative effects.
Currently, there are 30 known extant Florida golden aster populations
occurring in 5 counties (Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas, Highlands,
and Hardee Counties) with 25 of these populations occurring on
conservation lands (Federal, State, and conservation
[[Page 33190]]
easements). Climate change, as discussed above, is primarily 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, which 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 in 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 are introduced
populations and represent a small portion (less than 10 percent based
on current extant populations) of the species' range. Further, these
populations were all introduced after listing (i.e., are not naturally
occurring populations) and are not contributing much to the viability
of the species. If these populations become extirpated, the Florida
golden aster would lose some redundancy, but the loss of this portion
of the species' range would still leave sufficient resiliency
(populations with moderate to high resiliency), redundancy, and
representation in the remainder of the species' range such that it
would not notably reduce overall viability of the species. Therefore,
these populations do not represent a significant portion of the
species' range.
We conclude that the Florida golden aster is not in danger of
extinction nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a
significant portion of its range. This approach is consistent with the
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No.
16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center
for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial data
available indicates that Florida golden aster is not in danger of
extinction nor likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore,
we find that Florida golden aster does not meet the definition of an
endangered or threatened species, and we propose to remove Florida
golden aster from the List.
Effects of This Proposed Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to
remove Florida golden aster from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided
by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer
apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect Florida golden
aster. There is no critical habitat designated for this species.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor for not less than
5 years the status of all species that are delisted due. 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 a threatened or endangered
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. At the conclusion of the monitoring
period, we will review all available information to determine if re-
listing, the continuation of monitoring, or the termination of
monitoring is appropriate.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with
the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However,
we remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and,
therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also
seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume
responsibilities for the species' conservation after delisting.
Concurrent with this proposed delisting rule, we announce the draft
PDM plan's availability for public review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>
under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071. We seek information, data, and
comments from the public regarding Florida golden aster and the PDM
plan. We are also seeking peer review of the draft PDM plan
concurrently with this comment period. We anticipate finalizing the PDM
plan, considering all public and peer review comments, prior to making
a final determination on the proposed delisting rule.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all proposed rules in
plain language. This means that each proposed rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help
revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act need not be prepared in connection with
determining and implementing a species' listing status under the
[[Page 33191]]
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
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, and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. There are no Tribal interests affected
by this proposal.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the internet at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071.
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the
Service's Southeastern Region Recovery Team and the North Florida
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to 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. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Chrysopsis
floridana'' under ``Flowering Plants'' on the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-12741 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 24, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.