Proposed Rule2025-10191
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Ghost Orchid
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 5, 2025
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the ghost orchid (Dendrophylax lindenii), a flowering plant species found in the United States in southwestern Florida and in Cuba as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month finding on a petition to list the ghost orchid. After a review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we find that listing the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the ghost orchid as an endangered species under the Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants and extend the Act's protections to the species. We find that designating critical habitat for this species is not prudent.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 107 (Thursday, June 5, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 107 (Thursday, June 5, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23869-23883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10191]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2025-0022; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BI20
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Ghost Orchid
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the ghost orchid (Dendrophylax lindenii), a flowering plant
species found in the United States in southwestern Florida and in Cuba
as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month finding
on a petition to list the ghost orchid. After a review of the best
scientific and commercial data available, we find that listing the
species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the ghost orchid
as an endangered species under the Act. If we finalize this rule as
proposed, it would add this species to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants and extend the Act's protections to the species. We
find that designating critical habitat for this species is not prudent.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
August 4, 2025. 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 a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by July 21, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
Comment submission You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2025-0022,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
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-2025-0022, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: 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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2025-0022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nikki Colangelo, Supervisor, Division
of Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida
Ecological Services Office, 777 37th Street, Suite D-101, Vero Beach,
FL 32960; telephone 772-226-8138. Individuals in the United States who
are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may
dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2025-0022 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> for a document that
summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an
endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a
species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and
designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. We have determined that the ghost orchid meets the
Act's definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are proposing
to list it as such. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened
species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. We propose to list the ghost orchid as an
endangered species under the Act.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the ghost orchid meets the
Act's definition of an endangered species due to threats associated
with poaching (Factor B), habitat degradation due to hydrological
changes (Factor A), and the damage to the species and the host trees
from the increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes and impacts
from saltwater intrusion (Factor E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
concurrently with listing designate critical habitat for the species.
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time
it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features
(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may
require special management considerations or protections; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation
on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and any
[[Page 23870]]
other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. Because we have determined that the designation of critical
habitat will likely increase the degree of threat to the species, we
find that designation of critical habitat is not prudent for the ghost
orchid.
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 governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for pollination and reproduction;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species,
including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of this species.
(4) Information regarding our determination that designating
critical habitat for the ghost orchid is not prudent.
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, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support 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, and section 4(b)(2)
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best scientific 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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened
instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened
species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and
the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if
any, that differ from this proposal.
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. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On January 24, 2022, we received a petition from The Institute for
Regional Conservation, the National Parks Conservation Association, and
the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that the ghost orchid be
listed under the Act as a threatened species or an endangered species
and that critical habitat for the species be designated. Section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a
petition to add a species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants, remove a species from the Lists, or change a
listed species' status (from endangered to threatened or from
threatened to endangered) presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish the finding promptly in
the Federal Register. On October 19, 2022, we published in the Federal
Register (87 FR 63468) a 90-day finding that the petition contained
substantial information indicating that listing the ghost orchid may be
warranted and initiated a status review.
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we are required to make a
finding within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have
determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, as to whether
the petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but
precluded by other pending proposals. We must publish a notification of
this 12-month finding in the Federal Register. This proposed rule
constitutes our 12-month finding on the petition.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the ghost orchid. 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 23871]]
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing and recovery actions under the Act (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf</a>), we solicited independent scientific review of the information
contained in the ghost orchid SSA report. We sent the SSA report to
five independent peer reviewers and received two responses. The peer
reviews can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2025-0022. In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated
the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report,
which is the foundation for this proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from two
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions,
including clarifications in terminology and discussions of life
history, and other editorial suggestions. New information was provided
about impacts from recent hurricanes and poaching in both Cuba and
Florida, as well as saltwater intrusion on ghost orchid habitats in
Florida. We added this information to the SSA report. Otherwise, no
substantive changes to our analysis and conclusions within the SSA
report were deemed necessary, and peer reviewer comments are addressed
in version 1.1 of the SSA report.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
ghost orchid is presented in the SSA report (version 1.1; Service 2025,
pp. 11-15).
The ghost orchid is a white, showy flowering plant endemic to
southwestern Florida and western Cuba (figure 1, below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05JN25.002
Figure 1. Map Showing the Range of Ghost Orchid in Southwest Florida
and Western Cuba
Ghost orchid populations in Florida occur in the western Greater
Everglades ecosystem in approximately eight isolated locations (on
mostly protected or managed lands), across an area just over 1,450
square miles (3,757 square kilometers). In Cuba, fewer than 230 ghost
orchid plants are known from one area in Guanahacabibes National Park
in the southwestern part of the country. For the purposes of evaluating
current resiliency, we identified analysis units for ghost orchids that
relate to ownership and management areas (see table 1, below) and
likely represent discrete populations (see Current Condition below for
more details).
Ghost orchid plants have also been reported in eastern Cuba
including the province of Granma (Rio Portillo), Las Tunas, Santiago de
Cuba, Guantanamo, and Holguin provinces (Zettler et al 2019, p. 140;
Natureserve 2021, p. 3). None of these populations are believed to be
extant (M[uacute]jica 2021, entire). In addition, two plants were
reported from Ci[eacute]naga de Zapata National Park about 200 miles
(320 kilometers) to the east of Guanahacabibes, but these reports were
unconfirmed and the plants are presumed to be extirpated (Zettler et
al. 2019, p. 140).
[[Page 23872]]
Table 1--Ghost Orchid Analysis Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis unit Ownership/management Population size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Panther National Wildlife U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.. 275 <plus-minus> 20.
Refuge.
Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park. Florida Department of 230 <plus-minus> 50.
Environmental Protection (DEP).
Big Cypress National Preserve.......... National Park Service (NPS).... Approximately 300.
Audubon Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary...... National Audubon Society....... 2.
Coastal Transition Site 1.............. Florida DEP.................... 19.
Collier-Seminole State Park............ Florida DEP.................... 4-5.
Hendry County.......................... Undisclosed.................... 6-40.
Naples Urban Site...................... Undisclosed.................... 31.
Guanahacabibes National Park (Cuba).... Cuba........................... 230.
Six Mile Slough........................ Lee County Parks and Recreation Extirpated.
Picayune Strand State Forest........... Florida Forest Service......... Likely extirpated.
Ci[eacute]naga de Zapata National Park Cuba........................... Likely extirpated.
(Cuba).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ghost orchid is a leafless plant species that uses its roots to
photosynthesize and attach itself to a host tree. In Florida, ghost
orchids are found in wet freshwater environments including dome swamps
(an isolated, forested, depression wetland occurring within a fire-
maintained community such as mesic flatwoods (an open canopy of tall
pines and a dense, low ground layer of low shrubs, grasses, and
forbs)), sloughs (broad channels inundated with slow moving or nearly
stagnant water, except during extreme droughts), and strand swamps (a
shallow, forested, usually elongated depression or channel situated in
a trough within a flat limestone plain, and dominated primarily by bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum)). Across these habitat types, ghost
orchids are primarily found on Florida water ash (Fraxinus cubensis)
(Nesom 2010, entire; Weakley 2023, pp. 818-819) and pond apple (Annona
glabra) host trees, and to a lesser extent on bald cypress (Owen 2024,
entire). In Cuba, ghost orchids are found growing on tropical semi-
deciduous hardwood host trees that are rooted in fractured reef
limestone with little or no standing water (M[uacute]jica et al. 2018,
p. 573). Ghost orchids in Cuba are typically found growing on 5
different host tree species, though 18 host tree species have been
recorded (M[uacute]jica et al. 2018, p. 577).
In Florida, reproductively mature ghost orchid plants produce
flowers from May to August, though flowers have occasionally been
observed outside of these months (Brown 2002, p. 80; Flora of North
America 2002, p. 621). Plants in Cuba typically flower between October
and December (M[uacute]jica et al. 2018, p. 575). In the wild, it may
take 15 years or more for a ghost orchid plant to first produce flowers
(Houlihan et al. 2019, p. 7). By contrast, in controlled environments
plants can become reproductive earlier (Davis 2009, pp. 414-415; Hoang
et al. 2016, p. 390; Houlihan et al. 2019, p. 7). At night, flowers
produce a sweet, fruity fragrance that attracts two specific
pollinators, the fig sphinx moth (Pachylia ficus) and pawpaw sphinx
moth (Dolba hyloeus), that are nocturnally active (Houlihan et al.
2019, p.4; Danaher et al. 2020, p. 673).
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species.
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 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 determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species.
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
[[Page 23873]]
framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis
which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the
foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the
Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online
at <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>). The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (and the National Marine Fisheries
Service for species under the agency's jurisdiction) can make
reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to a species and the
species' responses to those threats. We need not identify the
foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. We will
describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best
scientific and commercial data available and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data available
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 proposed for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does
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 ghost orchid viability, we used the three conservation
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the
ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy
is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for
example, droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the
ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes
in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate
conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase
with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et
al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA process involved
making predictions about the species' future condition, including
responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic
influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best scientific
and commercial data available to characterize viability as the ability
of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time, which we
then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2025-0022 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the ghost
orchid and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Species Needs
The ghost orchid is a long-lived perennial flowering plant found in
high humidity, shaded environments. It may take 15 years or more for a
ghost orchid plant in the wild to first produce flowers (Houlihan et
al. 2019, p.7). They are epiphytic, which means they require host trees
as substrates to live on. Their root system keeps them attached to the
host tree and provides the means for photosynthesis since ghost orchids
are leafless. Like other orchids, for survival and germination, ghost
orchids require a fungal symbiont. For ghost orchid, this fungal
symbiont is a Ceratobasidium species recognized as distinct but not yet
named (Johnson et al. 2023, p. 4). Ghost orchids primarily rely on just
two pollinators, the fig sphinx moth and the pawpaw sphinx moth. These
pollinators are necessary for cross-pollination and successful
reproduction.
In Florida, one of the most important ecological conditions
necessary for ghost orchid survival is the presence of sufficiently wet
conditions throughout the year. The year-round presence of standing or
very slow-moving freshwater in slough and swamp habitats protects
against occasional frost and provides the necessary conditions for
seedling recruitment. Standing water conditions year-round also protect
against intense wildfires from burning into the interior of these
swamps and sloughs, which could damage or kill host trees. Ghost orchid
habitat in Cuba is different; plants are found growing on semi-
deciduous hardwood host trees in areas with little or no standing water
(M[uacute]jica et al. 2018, p. 573). However, in both Cuba and Florida
ghost orchid plants colonize host trees with moist, corrugated or semi-
corrugated bark, which is necessary for seed germination (M[uacute]jica
et al. 2018, p. 583).
Regardless of the habitat, ghost orchid recruitment is dependent on
having sufficiently wet conditions (even with little or no standing
water) present throughout the year (M[uacute]jica et al. 2021, p. 8),
likely because moist bark allows for the growth of its mycorrhizal
fungal partner (M[uacute]jica et al. 2018, p. 583; M[uacute]jica et al.
2021, p. 8). Without successful recruitment, populations will
eventually become extirpated when the mature individuals perish
(Rasmussen et al. 2015, p. 392). Therefore, resilient populations of
ghost orchid need high seedling numbers and robust recruitment rates
for population stability and growth (Chung et al. 2011, pp. 2034-2036;
Ackerman et al. 2020, pp. 677-682). For the ghost orchid, at least 20-
25 percent of plants should be in the seedling stage to achieve a
positive population growth rate (although having a percentage above
this level does not guarantee population growth) (M[uacute]jica et al.
2021, p. 4; Service 2025, p. 35).
In summary, based upon the best available scientific and commercial
information, and acknowledging existing uncertainties, we recognize
that ghost orchids need host trees for a growth substrate; they need
year-long standing water in Florida and wet conditions in both Florida
and Cuba to facilitate mycorrhizal fungi relationships for successful
recruitment and to protect against fire and frost (in Florida); and
they need pollinators for successful reproduction to occur.
[[Page 23874]]
Threats (Stressors/Risk Factors/Etc.)
Illegal Collection (Poaching)
Illegal collection or poaching is one of the primary, ongoing
threats to ghost orchid populations throughout its range. Orchids as a
group are highly prized and sought after by collectors for their beauty
and diversity (Wraith and Pickering 2017, pp. 3410-3414; Fay 2018, p.
2). The ghost orchid is one of the most desirable species for
collection due to its rarity, unusual growth form, and overall stunning
appearance. This desirability is enhanced by the difficulty in
successfully growing the species in greenhouse settings (Service 2025,
pp. 27-28). Poaching from wild populations endangers the viability of
populations by removing the individuals most likely to contribute to
reproduction and recruitment (e.g., flowering adults). In Florida,
poaching is illegal under Chapter 5B-40 Preservation of Native Flora of
Florida (FL Admin Code R 5B-40).
In the last several decades, poaching has affected many ghost
orchid populations, even in protected conservation areas. For example,
recent poaching in the summer of 2020 at Big Cypress National Preserve
likely had a significant impact on that population (Angelo 2024, p. 4).
Although Big Cypress National Preserve staff have taken important steps
to reduce the accessibility of the site, such as locking the gate to
the access road near the population and discontinuing maintenance of
the road, these areas remain vulnerable to poaching and disturbance.
Additionally, there are several unauthorized flagged trails to ghost
orchid sites within Big Cypress National Preserve that contribute to
this threat. The unauthorized flagging is an ongoing problem and has
been discovered and removed by Big Cypress National Preserve staff as
recently as summer 2024 (Angelo 2024, p. 5).
In another population at Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park,
where individual ghost orchid plants are closely monitored, 10 plants
were illegally collected between 2005 and 2020, which represents 8
percent of plants monitored (Owen 2024, entire). Even as recently as
2023, poachers were caught at Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park
attempting to steal reproductively mature ghost orchid plants (Fox 13
Tampa Bay 2024, entire). Some poaching has been documented or is
presumed to have occurred at Coastal Transition Site 1 (Franklin 2024,
entire) and Naples Botanical Garden, but this threat is considered
minimal here and/or has been reduced recently (Owen 2024, entire).
While poaching has not been specifically documented at the population
within Collier-Seminole State Park, local managers believe it has been
a problem in the past (Patel 2024, entire). It is likely that poaching
has occurred at other Florida populations and has simply not been
recorded, since populations are hard to access and not all are visited
regularly. In Guanahacabibes National Park in Cuba, poaching of at
least one mature ghost orchid has been documented since 2015 (Zettler
2024, entire) and poaching of 42 individuals of another co-occurring
epiphytic orchid (Broughtonia cubensis) were documented
(Ravent[oacute]s et al. 2015, p. 180).
What is especially detrimental to the health of ghost orchid
populations is poachers' preference for reproductively mature plants,
which can take 15 years or more to mature and are crucial to the
production of future generations. As such, the population level effects
may not be realized for many years after poaching has occurred. Even
though plants have been made available in the commercial horticultural
trade in recent years, poachers are still persistent in their efforts
(Herdman 2024, entire). Poaching is an ongoing rangewide threat that is
highly likely to continue into the future.
Habitat Degradation Related to Hydrological Changes
Canalization, ditching, and groundwater extraction have caused
hydrological changes and habitat modifications in areas occupied by the
ghost orchid. Southwestern Florida has undergone transformative
canalization over the last century to divert water away from
residential areas and roads (Service 2025, p. 18). Ditching associated
with past cypress logging has also contributed to alteration and
diversion of natural water flow (Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park
Unit Management Plan 2014, p. 19). Groundwater extraction for crops and
residential use has markedly increased in the last several decades as
both agricultural land use and human population size increased in the
region (Florida Regional Economic Analysis Project 2023, pp. 1-2).
These hydrological changes to the landscape have contributed to reduced
water flow and water availability to the adjacent natural areas that
the ghost orchid occupies (Clem and Duever 2019, pp. 365-367).
Increased water recession rates during the dry season have been
documented in the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (Clem and Duever 2019, p.
365), Collier-Seminole State Park (Collier-Seminole State Park Unit
Management Plan 2004, p. 18), and Big Cypress National Preserve
(National Park Service 2021, entire) in recent years.
These documented hydrological changes within the ghost orchid range
in Florida present several threats to populations. Ghost orchid
recruitment depends on having sufficiently wet conditions present
throughout the year (M[uacute]jica et al. 2021, p. 8). As noted above,
without successful recruitment, populations will eventually become
extirpated when mature individuals perish and are not replaced by
younger generations (Rasmussen et al. 2015, p. 392). Drier conditions
also increase potential exposure of ghost orchids to frost, which they
are not adapted to survive and are largely intolerant. Historically,
the long hydroperiods and high humidity of the ghost orchid's swamp and
slough habitats would protect these areas from frosts. With recent
decreases in year-round standing water conditions, frosts have become
more common and have contributed to extirpation of the only population
at Six Mile Cypress Slough Preserve in Lee County, Florida (Greeno
2024, entire), possibly 1 of 3 subpopulations at Coastal Transition
Site 1 (Florida DEP 2024, entire), and 35 or more plants at Fakahatchee
Strand Preserve State Park (Owen 2024, entire). Drier conditions have
also been observed in Collier-Seminole State Park and Big Cypress
National Preserve in recent years, which can increase the negative
impacts from frost in these areas (Florida DEP 2004, p. 18).
As a result of the hydrological change and subsequent drier
conditions, wildfires are now more frequent and represent a significant
threat to Florida ghost orchid populations (Clem and Duever 2019,
entire; Clem and Cornell 2021, entire; NatureServe 2021, pp. 5, 7). A
wildfire in 2018 at Picayune Strand State Park is presumed to have
extirpated one ghost orchid subpopulation (Sowell 2024, entire). The
Silver King Wildfire in 2020 at Big Cypress National Preserve burned
over 600 acres (243 hectares) and came within 6.5 feet (2 meters) of
the closest known ghost orchid, just narrowly missing the population
(Angelo 2024, p. 4). Nearby, the fire burned into the peat ground layer
and burned tree roots; had the fire reached just slightly farther,
ghost orchid host trees would have been directly impacted. Even without
reaching the host trees themselves, an intense fire in such close
proximity may still have negative future effects on ghost orchids
nearby, as the increased sunlight reaching the understory where the
plants are located can increase temperature and decrease humidity
[[Page 23875]]
(Herdman 2024, entire). Hydrological changes are an ongoing, rangewide
threat that is likely to continue into the future.
Hurricanes and Saltwater Intrusion
Hurricanes are regularly occurring natural weather events that
affect all parts of the ghost orchid range. Although hurricanes have
always been a component of Florida and Cuba's climate, their intensity
and frequency are increasing (Jay et al. 2023, p. 16). Category 4 and 5
hurricanes produce high winds (greater than 130 miles per hour) and can
uproot and kill host trees or damage branches, thereby killing any
ghost orchid plants on host trees and their branches. A single host
tree can support multiple ghost orchid plants. Therefore, the loss of
even one host tree could result in the loss of several ghost orchids.
Furthermore, the sudden and near complete loss of leaf canopy over
ghost orchid populations can have significant impacts to the species'
survival and health. Typically, ghost orchids are shaded from intense
sun exposure from the summer to early fall. The deciduous leaf canopy
is gradually lost over a period of two months in mid to late fall;
however, hurricanes can result in complete loss of leaves during the
storm. Such a dramatic change can expose ghost orchids to direct
sunlight and make them more prone to heat and desiccation stress. These
orchids may not immediately perish but may instead decline in health
over 1 to 2 years and then die (Owen 2024, entire). Any ghost orchids
occurring higher in the canopy would be especially susceptible to this
heat and desiccation threat, as well as to direct wind damage from
storms (Clem 2024a, entire).
Impacts from hurricanes have already been observed in multiple
populations. For example, at the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge, at least 48 orchids died after their host tree fell or had
branches damaged during Hurricane Irma in 2017 (M[uacute]jica et al.
2021, p. 8). Additionally, the number of seedlings observed in that
population dropped in the following 2 years after the hurricane,
demonstrating the negative demographic effects from storms
(M[uacute]jica et al. 2021, p. 3). The recent 30 percent decline of a
population at Big Cypress National Preserve is also directly
attributable to Hurricane Irma. A survey of the largest population
within the preserve took place just a few months before the storm and
then subsequently following the storm documenting the loss of numerous
host trees. Additionally, loss of ghost orchids due to changes in
canopy cover and humidity in the damaged area of the slough was also
evident (Angelo 2024, entire). The loss of one ghost orchid at Audubon
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary also occurred as a direct result of Hurricane
Irma (Clem 2024b, p. 1).
Strong hurricanes also produce flooding events from a high amount
of rainfall over a short period of time, which greatly increases normal
water levels in ghost orchid habitat. Some plants that would normally
be located above the water line on their host tree become inundated as
a direct result of this flooding and, if prolonged, can perish. Indeed,
this type of mortality was observed at the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge following Hurricane Irma (M[uacute]jica et al. 2021,
pp. 3-4) and was observed at Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park
following Hurricane Wilma (Owen 2024, entire).
Storm surges and saltwater intrusion are also threats affecting the
ghost orchid. Both the increased frequency and severity of storm surge
events after hurricanes and increased water salinity in wetland
habitats threaten coastal populations. At Coastal Transition Site 1,
measured surface water salinities have reached as high as 2.0 part per
trillion (ppt) in areas occupied by ghost orchids; soil porewater
salinities at this level are high enough to kill off host canopy trees
(Florida DEP 2024, entire). Nearby surface water salinities have been
measured even higher at up to 5.3 ppt, which has led to complete canopy
die-off and a steep decline in epiphyte diversity.
In summary, the increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes
over the last couple of decades has damaged host trees and reduced
overstory shading, which along with storm surges and associated
saltwater intrusion into the ghost orchid's freshwater habitat, has led
to a significant reduction in ghost orchid populations and their
habitat, thereby reducing overall population resiliency and the
species' redundancy. The threats of frequent and intense hurricanes are
occurring rangewide and are likely to continue into the future.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Ghost orchid is currently State-listed as an endangered species by
Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and
is included in the Florida Regulated Plant Index (endangered,
threatened and commercially exploited species) as defined in Chapter
5B-40 Preservation of Native Flora of Florida (FL Admin Code R 5B-40).
The State listing does not provide any direct habitat protection or
automatic conservation protections for the species. State government
regulations associated with this listing require both written
permission from the owner or legal representative and a permit issued
by FDACS to collect or remove plants listed as endangered on the
Florida Regulated Plant Index. Additionally, Title 62D-2.013, Park
Property and Resources, of the Florida Administrative Code (FL Admin
Code R 62D-2.013) prohibits the removal, destruction, or damage of
plants from Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Division
of Recreation and Park properties. This regulation provides protection
for the populations that occur on State lands but relies on public
awareness and voluntary adherence to the Florida administrative code
since monitoring is limited. As indicated in the Poaching section
above, these State-level legal restrictions have not dissuaded
poachers.
Additionally, all orchid species, including the ghost orchid, are
covered under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora treaty under Appendix II, which
requires permits for the trade of plants across international borders,
whether for commercial, scientific, or personal purposes (American
Orchid Society 2024, p. 1). However, this treaty does not regulate any
collection or movement of plants within an individual country and does
not appear to be a deterrent against ghost orchid poaching.
In 2024, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) finalized an addendum to the Florida's State Wildlife Action Plan
that added almost 600 plant species, including the ghost orchid, to its
list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need. However, even with this
change, the State Wildlife Action Plan does not ensure specific
conservation actions will be accomplished for any particular plant
species. Currently, almost all known extant populations are located on
public, protected lands, often with mixed ownership and management.
These include both State and federally managed lands, specifically
Florida Department of Environmental Protection State Parks, National
Wildlife Refuges, National Park Service units, Florida Forest Service
lands (historically but not extant), Lee County lands (historically but
not extant), and in Cuba at Guanahacabibes National Park (see table 1).
Additionally, there is also a privately owned and protected site at the
National Audubon Society's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
The level of monitoring and species-specific management at these
protected sites varies. For example, at the
[[Page 23876]]
Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park, the most recent management plan
lists the ghost orchid as a known imperiled species within the park. As
such, it lists hydrological maintenance, restoration and protection
from visitor impacts as the main management actions for the species and
monitoring efforts. The park management plan calls for a population
census to count the entire population with demographic analysis,
including mortality, reproduction, emigration, and immigration (Florida
DEP 2014, pp. 38-56). Conversely, the Collier-Seminole State Park's
management plan identifies the ghost orchid as a known species within
the park, but no species-specific management or monitoring actions are
listed (Florida DEP 2004, p. 84). However, their management goals of
controlling invasive exotic plant species and restoring hydrology to
pre-drainage conditions would likely benefit ghost orchid. At Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge, the population is monitored annually
for survival, flowering, fruiting, and recruitment rates (Danaher 2024,
entire). In their Natural Resource Prioritization Phase II Decision
Report, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge lists improving
and conserving hydrology of forested and herbaceous wetlands as a goal
to increase and/or maintain ghost orchid populations within slough
habitats.
While the ghost orchid is known for being difficult to grow in ex
situ (e.g., outside of natural) conditions, recent research has made
cultivation in greenhouses possible. One major step forward was the
discovery of the fungal strain (Ceratobasidium), harvested from ghost
orchid roots in the wild, that could be used in the lab to greatly
increase seed germination and successful seedling development rates
(Hoang et al. 2016, p. 383). Like all orchid species, ghost orchid
seeds and seedlings require a fungal mycorrhizal symbiont. Thus,
culturing the seeds with its specific Ceratobasidium fungal partner has
allowed for increased growth success of ghost orchids. Additionally,
although ghost orchids are considered intolerant of desiccation in
their natural, high-humidity environments, they appear to be somewhat
tolerant of desiccation in greenhouse settings (Coopman and Kane 2019,
p. 64). This discovery may allow for the direct use of greenhouse-
derived plants for field restoration and conservation of the species
(Coopman and Kane 2019, pp. 69, 106).
These advancements in greenhouse propagation could have important
conservation impacts for future restoration of ghost orchids. Such
efforts began in 2015 with the first translocation study in which ghost
orchids attached to burlap in the greenhouse were transplanted to host
trees at Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Survival of plants
was about 90 percent after 1 year and about 73 percent 20 months later
(Kane 2023, entire). Following this success, 120 six-year-old ghost
orchids grown from culture were directly outplanted to the Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Survival of these plants decreased
over time; in 2023, only 34 of the original 120 plants (28 percent)
remained. Additionally, despite flowering and developing seed capsules,
all fruits from these plants were aborted before fully maturing. One
likely explanation for this fecundity failure is inbreeding depression,
as all outplants were derived from a single seed capsule collected from
the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (Herdman 2024, entire).
Therefore, this population of outplants is not considered viable, as
successful reproduction has not been achieved.
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Current Condition
For the purposes of evaluating current conditions, we used analysis
units to evaluate population resiliency. Analysis units are based
largely on management areas and represent discrete groups and/or
populations of the ghost orchid. Most analysis units have just one area
where ghost orchids occur, but some analysis units consist of separate
locations that we refer to as subpopulations. When referring to ghost
orchids within an analysis unit, we use the term population or
subpopulation, as appropriate.
To assesses resiliency, we evaluated seven components that relate
to the species' needs and its population demography and habitat
conditions. Resiliency for each analysis unit was categorized as low,
moderate, or high based on information from documented studies,
available unpublished information, and expert opinion (see table 2,
below). In some instances, a low-moderate or moderate-high designation
was appropriate. For example, for the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge analysis unit, the number of seedlings and percent of seedlings
can vary from year to year, thus, in order to capture this variation,
we considered recent seedling abundance data collected over a six-year
period (2015-2020). Overall, we categorized the Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge as moderate-high because the first four years
of monitoring, seedling abundance was high (range 24-44 percent), but
the last two years of monitoring seedling abundance was moderate (14
percent) and low (0 percent) (M[uacute]jica et al. 2021, p. 4).
Therefore, for this six-year period, capturing interannual variation,
we consider the current condition of seedling abundance to be moderate-
high for this analysis unit (Service 2025, pp. 37-38). After resiliency
categories were assigned, we numerically scored each population
demography and habitat condition category (high = 3, moderate = 2, low
= 1) and then calculated the average current condition resiliency for
each analysis unit (see table 3, below). Please see the SSA report for
a detailed description of current resiliency methods and results
(Service 2025, pp. 29-43).
Table 2--Resiliency Categories and Metrics for Assessing Current Condition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seedling Reproductive Population Hydrological Forest
Resiliency category Total abundance abundance output status condition Poaching condition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High......................... >175 orchids..... >20% seedlings.. >10% fruiting... Population Year-long No evidence or Intact canopy/
stable to standing history of subcanopy;
increasing. water; poaching. host trees
freshwater present.
hydrological
conditions
same as
historical.
[[Page 23877]]
Moderate..................... 50-175 orchids... 10-20% seedlings 5-10% fruiting.. Population Some evidence Poaching has Some intact
fluctuating of hydroperiod been canopy/
but overall shortening and documented but subcanopy;
stable. evidence of threat has some host
slightly been reduced trees present.
inadequate and or is
freshwater minimal.
conditions.
Low.......................... <50 orchids...... <10% seedlings.. <5% fruiting.... Population Obvious Poaching has Open canopy;
decreasing. hydroperiod been host tree
shortening and/ documented and availability
or inadequate is ongoing. minimal.
freshwater
condition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Summary of Ghost Orchid Current Condition by Analysis Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Seedling Reproductive Population Hydrologic Forest Overall
Analysis unit abundance abundance output trends condition Poaching condition resiliency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Panther National High......... Moderate- Moderate..... Low.......... Moderate...... High......... Low.......... Moderate.
Wildlife Refuge. High.
Fakahatchee Strand Preserve High......... Low......... Low-Moderate. Low.......... Moderate...... Low.......... Low.......... Low.
State Park.
Big Cypress National Preserve High......... Low......... Low.......... Low.......... Low........... Low.......... Low.......... Low.
Audubon Corkscrew Swamp Low.......... Low......... Low.......... Low.......... Low-Moderate.. High......... Low-Moderate. Low.
Sanctuary.
Coastal Transition Site 1.... Low.......... Low......... Moderate..... Low.......... Low........... Moderate..... Moderate..... Low.
Collier-Seminole State Park.. Low.......... Low......... Low.......... Low.......... Moderate...... Moderate..... Low-Moderate. Low.
Hendry County................ Low.......... Low......... Low.......... Unknown...... Moderate...... High......... Unknown...... Low-Moderate.
Naples Urban Site............ Low.......... Low......... Low-moderate. Low.......... Moderate...... Moderate..... Unknown...... Low.
Guanahacabibes National Park. High......... Moderate.... Moderate..... Low.......... None.......... Moderate..... Low.......... Moderate.
Six Mile Slough.............. Low.......... Low......... Low.......... Low.......... Low........... Extirpated... Low.......... None.
Picayune Strand State Forest. Low.......... Low......... Low.......... Low.......... Low........... Likely Low.......... None.
Extirpated.
Ci[eacute]naga de Zapata Low.......... Low......... Low.......... Low.......... N/A........... Likely Unknown...... None.
National Park. Extirpated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our current condition analysis, no ghost orchid
populations are considered to have high resiliency. This is largely due
to all analysis units experiencing declines in recent years, and all
analysis units are in low condition for multiple demographic and
habitat factors. Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and
Guanahacabibes National Park are the only two analysis units with
moderate resiliency. Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge has one
of the larger populations (approximately 275 plants) and seedling
abundance and fruit production are good in most years with little to no
threat of poaching. However, recent hurricane impacts have been
significant, and this analysis unit has a declining population trend
(approximately 70 percent between 2015-2023) (Danaher 2024, entire).
Additionally, hydrological impacts have been significant due to the
widespread alteration of natural water flow from surrounding roads and
canals. Thus, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge analysis
unit received an overall moderate resiliency score.
Guanahacabibes National Park also has a relatively large population
(approximately 230 plants) with some seedling and reproductive output,
and hydrological impacts do not pose a threat due to the different type
of habitat utilized by the species in Cuba. However, similar to the
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, hurricanes have had
significant impacts to the Guanahacabibes National Park analysis unit.
After Hurricane Ivan in 2004, a significant population decline (59
percent) was documented (Wiegand et al. 2013, pp. 444-447). If the
greater frequency and intensity of hurricanes continues in the near
term, it is estimated that this population could be extirpated by 2040
(Ravent[oacute]s et al. 2015, pp. 182-184). Additionally, at least one
mature ghost orchid has been poached from this population in the last
decade (Zettler 2024, entire) and in 2010, 42 individuals of another
co-occurring epiphytic orchid (Broughtonia cubensis) were poached from
the park (Ravent[oacute]s et al. 2015, p. 180).
Although Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park is one of the
larger populations (approximately 180 to 280 plants) it has an overall
low resiliency due to a high rate of poaching, low seedling abundance,
poor seedling survival rates, and, in most years, low reproductive
output (Owen 2024, entire). Furthermore, this analysis unit has
experienced a steep population decline of approximately 60-77 percent
over the last 30 years Owen 2024, entire).
Similarly, the Big Cypress National Preserve population, although
larger in size (around 300 plants), has a documented decline of at
least 30 percent since 2017 (Angelo 2024, entire), has low seedling
abundance or fruit production and suffered large losses after Hurricane
Irma in 2017. Ghost orchids within this analysis unit also face a high
threat of poaching with significant poaching documented in recent years
(Angelo 2024, entire). The habitat within the Big Cypress National
Preserve has also been much drier in recent years and an intense 2020
wildfire reached dangerously close to ghost orchid areas. Together,
these factors resulted in an overall low resiliency score for Big
Cypress National Preserve.
Population trends for the Hendry County analysis unit are unknown
as the presence of this population is known from only one survey in
2023. We know the population is small (less than 40 plants, but likely
between 10 and 20 plants), reproductive output is likely low, and
poaching is apparently not an issue (no evidence of poaching, to date)
(Nesmith 2024, entire; Owen 2024, entire). Thus, Hendry County site
[[Page 23878]]
is considered to have low to moderate resiliency.
Coastal Transition Site 1 is considered to have low resiliency and
consists of a small population (approximately 19 plants) with little
seedling abundance and survival. This analysis unit has significantly
decreased in size, with two of the three areas with ghost orchids
extirpated from impacts related to poaching, hurricanes, storm surges,
and saltwater intrusion. Surface water salinities in this analysis unit
have reached concerning levels and the remaining 19 plants are
extremely susceptible to impacts from saltwater intrusion as well as
other threats (Florida DEP 2024, pers. comm.; Service 2025, p. 22).
Audubon Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary is one of the most well-known
populations due to its high flowering rates (plants flower regularly
with many flowers on each plant), unusually high height in its host
trees, and easy accessibility. However, this population is very small
with currently only two plants documented. This analysis unit has been
significantly impacted by drier hydrologic conditions and recent
hurricane damage, giving it an overall low resiliency.
The Collier-Seminole State Park analysis unit scored low for every
demographic factor, and the population consists of just four or five
plants (Patel 2024, entire). These factors, combined with the
hydrologic and hurricane impacts affecting the analysis unit, results
in low overall resiliency.
Lastly, the Naples Urban Site scored low for total abundance
because it consists of only 31 plants. Though many of these plants are
reproductively mature, this population experienced a decline of
approximately 25 percent from 2001 to 2017 due to impacts from
hurricanes (Owen 2024, entire). Given this information, we consider
Naples Urban Site to have low resiliency.
Redundancy
Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophes.
We can best gauge redundancy by analyzing the number and distribution
of populations relative to the scale of anticipated species-relevant
catastrophic events. Because three ghost orchid populations are
considered recently extirpated and most extant ghost orchid populations
are in low or low to moderate resiliency and are distributed in a
narrow geographic area (limited range in Florida, only one population
in Cuba, and no connectivity between the Florida and Cuba populations),
redundancy for this species is limited. A single catastrophic event,
such as a strong hurricane, could impact a large component of the
species' range at one time and cause significant declines at multiple
sites simultaneously. Such impacts have already been observed following
Hurricane Irma in 2017 when at least five out of eight analysis units
in Florida (Big Cypress National Preserve, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve
State Park, Audubon Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Coastal Transition Site
1, and Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge) and the Guanahacabibes
National Park analysis unit in Cuba, were negatively affected at the
same time. With hurricane frequency and intensity projected to increase
in the future, negative population-level to species-level impacts could
likely happen again.
Representation
Representation reflects a species' adaptive capacity to respond to
changing near-term and long-term environmental conditions and can be
characterized by the breadth of genetic and ecological diversity within
and among populations. A species' adaptive capacity is essential for
viability, as species need to adapt to their continuously changing
environments (Nicotra et al. 2015, p. 1269). We do not have information
on the genetic diversity within or among ghost orchid populations
across the species' range, though the need for such studies has been
highlighted (Danaher et al. 2020, p. 682; Houlihan et al. 2019, p. 7)
and some genetic work has begun but is not yet available (Danaher 2024,
entire; Herdman 2024, entire).
Different habitat types within the species' range, or morphological
or phenological differences, can also reflect a species' ability to
adapt to changing conditions. One of the biggest distinctions between
the Florida and Cuba populations is the type of habitat occupied. While
all current ghost orchids in Florida occur in long hydroperiod
subtropical dome swamps, strand swamps, and sloughs, plants in Cuba's
extant population occur in a tropical semi-deciduous forest with soils
characterized as fractured reef limestone, and little or no standing
water present (Ravent[oacute]s et al. 2015, p. 180; M[uacute]jica et
al. 2018, p. 573). It is possible that at least some habitat
differences may be attributable to the difference in climate between
the two regions, with subtropical southwest Florida occasionally
experiencing frost conditions while tropical western Cuba never
experiences frost. The southwest Florida populations may require long
hydroperiod environments to protect ghost orchids from frost events,
while the Cuba populations do not experience frost and therefore lack
this requirement.
Another difference between the Florida and Cuba populations is host
tree species availability, with most Florida ghost orchids primarily
found growing on just two species of trees (Florida water ash and pond
apple), while ghost orchids in Cuba can be primarily found growing on 5
different host tree species, though 18 species of host tree have been
recorded (M[uacute]jica et al. 2018, p. 577). There is no overlap in
host tree species between the two regions, as nearly all the trees that
ghost orchids grow on in Cuba do not occur in Florida and the host
trees of Florida are much less common in Cuba. However, in both
regions, ghost orchids prefer host trees with moist, corrugated or
semi-corrugated bark (M[uacute]jica et al. 2018, p. 581).
There is also a distinct difference in the phenology of ghost
orchids in Florida compared to those found in Cuba. While flowering
typically occurs from May to August in Florida, flowering in Cuba
occurs later in the year, typically from October to December
(M[uacute]jica et al. 2018, p. 575). Consequently, there is also a
distinct difference in fruiting times between the two regions, with
Florida ghost orchids typically fruiting in January to April and Cuba
plants fruiting from May to June (M[uacute]jica et al. 2018, p. 575).
One morphological difference between ghost orchids in these two regions
is nectar spur (serves as the pathway for pollinators to access nectar)
length, which on average appears to be several centimeters longer in
the Cuba population compared to those in Florida, which could indicate
a genetic component causing this distinction (Zettler 2024, entire).
Although there are regional differences in ghost orchid habitat,
morphology, and phenology, it is also important to recognize the ways
in which the species' life history and ecological associations remain
constant across its range. For example, in both Florida and Cuba,
plants appear to prefer growing on trees with corrugated or semi-
corrugated bark on average about 3 to 6 feet (0.9 to 1.8 meter) above
ground, though Florida plants may grow slightly higher, probably to
accommodate the higher water levels (M[uacute]jica et al. 2018, p.
581). Additionally, flowers in both regions are pollinated primarily by
two species of moths (fig sphinx moth and pawpaw sphinx moth), and
ghost orchids in both regions need to form symbiotic relationships with
mycorrhizal fungi. While the presence/absence of frost
[[Page 23879]]
distinguishes the two regions, other climatic conditions such as
average total annual rainfall and average annual temperature are
similar between Florida and Cuba (M[uacute]jica et al. 2018, p. 575).
Taken altogether, there are some differences between the two main
regions of occurrence (Florida and Cuba), which reflect some degree of
representation, but there is little if any difference within ghost
orchid populations in Florida where most ghost orchids are currently
located. In Florida, the species is highly dependent on habitats with
standing water year-round and just a few host tree species. In both
Cuba and Florida, ghost orchids are dependent upon moist bark for
seedling germination, a specific type of mycorrhizal fungal
relationship, and two species of pollinators. Thus, overall, the
representation of ghost orchid is considered to be relatively low.
Summary of Current Condition
Historically, ghost orchid occurred in 12 analysis units. Two
analysis units in Florida and one analysis unit in Cuba have recently
extirpated populations. Thus, ghost orchid currently occurs in nine
analysis units, eight of these are in Florida and one is in Cuba. In
Florida, six analysis units are considered to have low resiliency; one
analysis unit is considered to have low to moderate resiliency; and one
analysis unit is considered to have moderate resiliency. In Cuba, only
one analysis unit has an extant ghost orchid population and is
considered to have moderate resiliency. All analysis units have
declining populations. Overall, the species has low abundance within
each analysis unit with no more than 300 individuals within any
analysis unit; most contain less than 40 plants.
With declining population health (overall low resiliency due to low
abundances and declining habitat conditions) coupled with a relatively
small geographic extent and the extirpation of recent populations (low
redundancy), and relatively low adaptive capacity, the species now
possesses limited ability to withstand inherent stochasticity
(environmental, demographic, and genetic), catastrophic events
(hurricanes, wildfire, frost), and other changing environmental
conditions (storm surge and saltwater intrusion).
Future Condition
As part of the SSA, we also developed a future condition analysis
which provides a summary of the primary threats to the species and how
these threats are projected to continue to impact ghost orchid
viability. Because we determined that the current condition of ghost
orchid is consistent with an endangered species (see Determination of
Ghost Orchid Status, below), we are not presenting the results of the
future scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report
(Service 2025) for the full analysis of future scenarios.
Determination of Ghost Orchid's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the ghost orchid and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find that the viability of the species is currently at
risk. The primary threats currently impacting the species are poaching
(especially of mature plants) (Factor B), habitat degradation (related
to hydrological changes) (Factor A), and the increased intensity and
frequency of hurricanes that cause damage to or loss of the species'
host trees and overstory shading and impacts from saltwater intrusion
(Factor E). Overall, the species has relatively low abundance with no
more than 300 plants within any analysis unit; most analysis units have
less than 40 plants (see table 1). All analysis units have declining
populations, and all analysis units have experienced negative impacts
from hydrological change and recent hurricanes. Two-thirds of the
analysis units have a significant amount of poaching pressure,
including two analysis units with an especially high degree of poaching
pressure (Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park and Big Cypress
National Preserve). The two analysis units with especially high degree
of poaching pressure also have the largest populations of ghost
orchids. Of the nine analysis units that currently have ghost orchid
populations, six analysis units are in overall low resiliency
condition, one analysis unit has low to moderate resiliency, and two
analysis units have moderate resiliency (see table 3, above). Three
analysis units have been extirpated within the last 10 to 15 years.
With declining population health (declining abundances and
deteriorating habitat conditions) coupled with recent extirpation of
populations and small geographic extent, the ghost orchid now has low
resiliency, redundancy, and representation and possesses limited
ability to withstand inherent stochasticity (environmental,
demographic, and genetic), catastrophic events (hurricanes, frost,
wildfire), and changing environmental conditions (storm surges and
saltwater intrusion). Similar to Hurricane Irma in 2017, another
catastrophic storm or hurricane, could severely impact multiple
populations simultaneously, and further reduce the already low
population resiliency and redundancy of the species. Additionally,
given the ghost orchid's relatively narrow range, limited habitat types
and number of host tree and pollinator species, and highly specific
mycorrhizal fungi requirements, we consider the species to have
relatively low representation.
We do not find the ghost orchid meets the definition of a
threatened species because the species is currently experiencing
population declines resulting in low resiliency and has deteriorating
habitat conditions driven or exacerbated by the identified threats.
Because the ghost orchid has low redundancy and representation is
limited, the species is vulnerable to a single catastrophic event like
a hurricane that could impact the entire range. Thus, after assessing
the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that
ghost orchid is in danger of extinction 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
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. We have determined that the ghost orchid is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did not
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of
[[Page 23880]]
its range. Because the ghost orchid warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.
Determination of Status
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the ghost orchid meets the Act's definition of an
endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the ghost orchid as
an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of
the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required
by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions
against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species">https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species</a>) or from our Florida Ecological Services Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions may be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the ghost orchid. Information on our
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found
at: <a href="https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance">https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance</a>.
Although the ghost orchid is only proposed for listing under the
Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled Interagency Cooperation and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act states that each Federal action agency
shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat,
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in
jeopardy or adverse modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for the ghost orchid that may be
subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 7 are
management of Federal lands administered by the
[[Page 23881]]
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife
Refuges, and Department of Defense as well as actions that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)) or
actions funded by Federal agencies such as the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat--and actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out
by a Federal agency--do not require section 7 consultation. Federal
agencies should coordinate with the Florida Ecological Services Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific questions on
section 7 consultation and conference requirements.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and the Service's
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered
plant: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) remove
and reduce to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction;
maliciously damage or destroy on any such area; or remove, cut, dig up,
or damage or destroy on any other area in knowing violation of any law
or regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State
criminal trespass law; (3) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the
course of a commercial activity; or (4) sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these
prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, other Federal
land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Service
regulations governing permits for endangered plants are codified at 50
CFR 17.62, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at
50 CFR part 13. With regard to endangered plants, a permit may be
issued for scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or
survival of the species. The statute also contains certain exemptions
from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
II. Critical Habitat
Background
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in
section 3(5)(A) of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3(3) of the Act, means to
use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to
bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such
methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation also does not allow the government or public to access
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the listed species. Even if the Service were to
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further,
our Policy on Information
[[Page 23882]]
Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated
Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures,
and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best
scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent
consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original sources of information as the
basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information compiled in the SSA report and information developed during
the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best scientific data
available at the time of designation will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered species or a
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
designation of critical habitat may not be prudent in circumstances
such as, but not limited to, the following:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
As described above, there is currently an ongoing and imminent
threat of take attributed to poaching for this species. The precise
location of all ghost orchid populations are not publicly available.
Although some locations are known to the public and have been accessed
by poachers, other population's locations have been kept confidential
to deter poaching. For example, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
which maintains a comprehensive database of the biological resources in
Florida, classifies ghost orchid data as sensitive and does not make
those data publicly available. During peer and technical review of the
ghost orchid SSA, numerous reviewers requested that we do not use
location information and where possible, asked that we use more general
descriptions of where ghost orchids are found to keep location
information private. Identification and mapping of critical habitat is
expected to increase the threat of take attributed to poaching because
when we designate critical habitat, we publish detailed maps and
descriptions of species' occurrences in the Federal Register, which in
this case, could make the ghost orchid more vulnerable to poaching.
Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat
will likely increase the degree of threat to the species, we find that
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for the ghost orchid.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) 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 us
revise the 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.
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, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government
basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997
(American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our
responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs
for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not
subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain
sensitive to
[[Page 23883]]
Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We sent
letters to the Seminole Tribe and the Miccosukee Tribe, which are
within the range of the ghost orchid. We will continue to work with
relevant Tribal entities during the development of any final rules for
the ghost orchid.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and upon request from
the Florida Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Signing Authority
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on May 23, 2025, for publication. On May 30, 2025,
Paul Souza authorized the undersigned to sign the document
electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
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.
0
2. In Sec. 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants by adding an entry for ``Dendrophylax lindenii'' in
alphabetical order under Flowering Plants to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Dendrophylax lindenii........ Ghost orchid......... Wherever found........ E [Federal Register
citation when
published as a final
rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-10191 Filed 6-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 5, 2025.
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.