Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida Prairie-clover), and Threatened Species Status for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades Bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida Pineland Crabgrass), and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Pineland Sandmat), 46691-46715 [2017-21617]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46691-46715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21617]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2016-0090; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BB48


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida Prairie-
clover), and Threatened Species Status for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense (Everglades Bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida 
Pineland Crabgrass), and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Pineland 
Sandmat)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida 
prairie-clover), and threatened species status for Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades bully), Digitaria 
pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass), and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum (pineland sandmat). All four plant species are endemic to 
south Florida. This rule adds these species to the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants.

[[Page 46692]]


DATES: This rule is effective November 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we received, as well as 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available 
for public inspection on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov, or 
in person, by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 
1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; telephone 772-562-3909; 
facsimile 772-562-4288.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanna Hinzman, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES, above). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that 
a species is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a 
proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our 
proposal within 1 year. Listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species can only be completed by issuing a rule.
    This rule makes final the listing of Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana (Florida prairie-clover) as an endangered species, and 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades bully), 
Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass), and Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat) as threatened species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on 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 threats to Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana consist primarily of 
habitat loss and modification through urban and agricultural 
development, and lack of adequate fire management (Factor A); and the 
proliferation of nonnative invasive plants, stochastic events 
(hurricanes, storm surge, wildfires), maintenance practices used on 
roadsides and disturbed sites, and sea level rise (Factor E). Existing 
regulatory mechanisms have not been adequate to reduce or remove these 
threats (Factor D).
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our decision is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers 
to comment on our listing proposal, and we received comments from three 
peer reviewers. We also considered all comments and information we 
received from the public during the comment period.

Previous Federal Action

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (81 
FR 70282; October 11, 2016) for a detailed description of previous 
Federal actions concerning these species.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on October 11, 2016 (81 FR 70282), 
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by December 12, 2016. We also contacted appropriate Federal 
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. 
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the 
Miami Herald and Key West Citizen. We did not receive any requests for 
a public hearing.
    Also, in accordance with our peer review policy published on July 
1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included 
familiarity with the four species and their habitat, biological needs, 
and threats. We received responses from all three peer reviewers.
    All substantive information provided during the comment period has 
either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is 
addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and 
conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and 
suggestions to improve the final rule. We reviewed all comments 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the listing of the four plants. Where 
appropriate, we have incorporated corrections, editorial suggestions, 
and new literature and other information provided into the final rule. 
Any substantive comments are discussed below.
    Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that recent studies suggest 
some previously known taxonomic indicators are not reliable to 
distinguish between Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. reclinatum and S. 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense. Therefore, survey results from Big 
Cypress National Park (BCNP) cited in the proposed rule may have 
significantly underestimated S. reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense 
distribution and abundance. The reviewer also indicated that given the 
large number of individuals and more widespread distribution created by 
the recent taxonomic evaluation of this taxon, the Service does not 
have adequate information to support classifying this taxon as 
threatened.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information and agree that if 
taxonomic indicators do not reliably distinguish between Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. reclinatum and S. reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
then S. reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense's distribution and abundance 
may be greater than survey results cited in the proposed rule. We have 
incorporated the additional information on S. reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense's distribution in BCNP into this rule in the ``Current 
Range, Population Estimates, and Status'' (Table 1) section for the 
subspecies. However, despite recent taxonomic changes that may result 
in greater abundance and distribution for S. reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, we have determined that the subspecies qualifies as 
threatened. This is because sea level rise is projected to have 
profound negative effects on S. reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense and 
all of its habitat throughout its range in the foreseeable future, even 
when the additional distribution is considered. Decades prior to 
inundation, pine rocklands and marl prairies are likely to undergo 
habitat transitions related to climate change, including changes to 
hydrology and increasing vulnerability

[[Page 46693]]

to storm surge, rendering these areas unsuitable for S. reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense.

Public Comments

    We received one public comment with new information on the 
historical distribution of Chamaesyce deltaoidea spp. pinetorum; we 
have incorporated this information into the final rule.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    In the Background section, we made the following changes based on 
peer review and public comments:
    (1) We incorporated new information on the life history, site 
locations, abundance and distribution of Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana, Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. Austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora,and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. Pinetorum as appropriate.
    (2) We incorporated new information on the ecology and plant 
species composition of pine rockland, marl prairie, coastal berm, and 
rockland hammock habitats.
    (3) We incorporated new information regarding ex situ conservation 
for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Digitaria pauciflora.
    (4) We incorporated new information on the taxonomic indicators of 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense used in comparison with 
the similar subspecies S. reclinatum ssp. reclinatum.
    In the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section, we made 
the following changes:
    (5) We incorporated new information regarding the threat of scale 
insects and Cassytha filiformis infestations on Dalea carthagenensis 
var. floridana.
    (6) We clarified our discussion of regulatory protection for State-
listed plants on private lands through FAC 5B-40.
    (7) We clarified our discussion of restoration management to 
indicate it only be conducted by highly trained crews.
    (8) We incorporated new information regarding potential drier 
conditions in response to hydrological restoration within the 
Everglades.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades bully)

Species Description
    Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense is a single to many-
stemmed shrub, 3 to 6 feet (ft) (1 to 2 meters (m)) tall (Corogin and 
Judd 2014, pp. 410-412). The branches are smooth, slightly bent, and 
somewhat spiny. The leaves are thin, oval-shaped, 0.8 to 2 inches (in) 
(2 to 5 centimeters (cm)) long, evergreen, lance-shaped, and fuzzy on 
their undersides. The flowers are in axillary clusters (Long and Lakela 
1971, p. 679).
    Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense is distinguished from 
the similar subspecies S. reclinatum ssp. reclinatum in Florida by its 
leaves, which are persistently pubescent (fuzzy) on their undersides, 
rather than smooth or pubescent only along the leaf midvein (Wunderlin 
and Hansen 2003, p. 603). In addition, the two subspecies are more 
reliably distinguished by differences in the micromorphology of the 
leaf epidermis, and by the extent of distribution of S. r. ssp. 
austrofloridense, which is limited to extreme southern peninsular 
Florida (Corogin and Judd 2014, p. 404).
Taxonomy
    The genus Sideroxylon is represented by eight species in Florida. 
All of these plants were previously assigned to the genus Bumelia. 
Sideroxylon reclinatum, the Florida bully, is represented by three 
subspecies that range nearly throughout Florida and into neighboring 
states. The Everglades subspecies was first recognized by Whetstone 
(1985, pp. 544-547) as Bumelia reclinata var. austrofloridense, then 
transferred to the genus Sideroxylon (Kartesz and Gandhi 1990, pp. 421-
427). Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense was made a 
subspecies rather than a variety (Kartesz and Gandhi 1990, pp. 421-
427); in plant nomenclature, the ranks of variety and subspecies are 
interchangeable. Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense is used 
in the current treatment of the Florida flora (Wunderlin and Hansen 
2016, p. 1).
    The online Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants (Wunderlin and Hansen 
2016, p. 1), Integrated Taxonomic System (ITIS 2016, p. 1), NatureServe 
(2016, p. 1), and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
Services (FDACS) (Coile and Garland 2003, p. 19) indicate that 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense is the accepted taxonomic 
status.
    Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense is differentiated from 
S. reclinatum ssp. reclinatum by a set of distinct characters at the 
micromorphological level (Corogin and Judd 2014, p. 408). The two taxa 
are also separated eco-geographically. Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense is a narrow endemic, restricted to pine rockland and 
marl prairie habitats in a well-defined area of extreme southeast 
peninsular Florida. Conversely, Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. reclinatum 
is more wide-ranging, occurring coastally from southern Georgia west to 
Louisiana, and throughout Florida as far south as Broward County in the 
east, and Collier and Monroe Counties in the west. The only place where 
plants of both species overlap is within BCNP, at the western fringe of 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense's range (Corrogin and Judd 
2014, p. 409).
Climate
    The climate of south Florida where Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense occurs is classified as tropical savanna and is 
characterized by distinct wet and dry seasons and a monthly mean 
temperature above 18 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F)) in every month of the year (Gabler et al. 1994, p. 211). 
Freezes can occur in the winter months, but are infrequent at this 
latitude in south Florida. Rainfall in the area where Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense occurs varies from an annual average 
of 153-165 cm (60-65 in) in the northern portion of the Miami Rock 
Ridge to an average of 140-153 cm (55-60 in) in the southern portion. 
Approximately 75 percent of yearly rainfall occurs during the wet 
season from June through September (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 238).
Habitat
    Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense grows in pine rockland 
habitat, marl prairie habitat and within the ecotone between both 
habitats (Gann et al. 2006, p. 12; Bradley et al. 2013, p. 4; Gann 
2015, p. 31). These habitats are maintained by regular fire, and are 
prone, particularly marl prairie, to annual flooding for several months 
during the wet season (Gann et al. 2006, p. 13; Bradley et al. 2013, p. 
4). Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense also grows on the 
sunny edges of rockland hammock habitat (Gann 2015, p. 412), which is 
fire-resistant. Historically, fire served to maintain the boundary 
between pine rockland and rockland hammock by eliminating the 
encroachment of hardwoods into pine rocklands. Absent natural or 
prescribed fire, many pine rocklands have succeeded to rockland hammock 
(Florida Natural Area Inventory [FNAI] 2010, p. 25). Canopy cover on 
the interior of rockland hammock is too dense to support herbs and 
smaller shrub species, such as S. r. ssp. austrofloridense, that 
require more sunlight. For a detailed description of

[[Page 46694]]

pine rockland, marl prairie, and rockland hammock habitats, please see 
the proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282; October 11, 2016).
    Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense occurs in sparsely 
vegetated, well-lit, open areas that are maintained by disturbance. 
However, the dynamic nature of the habitat means that areas not 
currently open may become open in the future as a result of canopy 
disruption from hurricanes or invasive plant management, while areas 
currently open may develop more dense canopy over time, eventually 
rendering that portion of the hammock unsuitable for S. r. ssp. 
austrofloridense.
Historical Range
    The historical range of Sideroxlon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense 
is limited to Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties, Florida. In 
Miami-Dade County, the plant was known from central and southern Miami-
Dade County along the Miami Rock Ridge, which extends from Long Pine 
Key in the Everglades northward through urban Miami to the Miami River. 
In Monroe County, the plant is known from BCNP on the mainland, and was 
collected as far south as Key Largo, in the Florida Keys. In Collier 
County, the subspecies has been recorded only within BCNP. All known 
historical and current records for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense are summarized below in Table 1.
Current Range, Population Estimates, and Status
    The current range of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense 
is BCNP, the Long Pine Key region of ENP, and pine rocklands adjacent 
to ENP (Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 42; Gann et al. 2006, p. 11; 
Bradley 2007, pers. comm.; Possley 2011a and 2011b, pers. comm.; Sadle 
2011, pers. comm.; Bradley et al. 2013, p. 4; Gann 2015, p. 30). The 
subspecies is apparently extirpated from Key Largo. Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense has not been found in surveys of pine 
rocklands on Key Largo, Big Pine Key, Cudjoe Key and Lower Sugarloaf 
Key (Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 42). The current range is 
approximately 42 mi (67.5 km) (Gann et al. 2002, p. 526; Corogin and 
Judd 2014, p. 412).
    The largest population occurs at Long Pine Key in ENP (Hodges and 
Bradley 2006, p. 42; Gann et al. 2006, p. 11; Gann 2015, p. 9). The 
population at Long Pine Key is estimated at between 10,000-100,000 
plants (Gann et al. 2006, pp. 9-11; Gann 2015, p. 29). Recent surveys 
of ENP have identified 14 occurrences of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense in Long Pine Key, expanding the known range in ENP 
(Gann 2015, p. 30).
    In Miami-Dade County, outside ENP, pine rocklands tracts are orders 
of magnitude smaller and exist in a matrix of agricultural, commercial, 
and residential development. Approximately 73 plants were observed at 
Larry and Penny Thompson Park, within the Richmond Pine Rocklands 
(Possley and McSweeney 2005, p. 1). Extant populations have been found 
at Quail Roost Pineland (two plants), Navy Wells Pineland Preserve 
(four plants), and Sunny Palms Pinelands (two plants) (Possley 2011a 
and 2011b, pers. comm.). The subspecies has been observed in pine 
rocklands at Grant Hammock and Pine Ridge Sanctuary (Bradley et al. 
2013, p.1). The subspecies no longer occurs at the Nixon-Smiley 
Preserve.
    Surveys in the Gum Slough region of Lostmans Pines in BCNP reported 
finding Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense with limited 
distribution within the study area (Bradley et al. 2013, pp. 1-8). 
However, Sadle (2016, pers. comm.) suggests that additional taxonomic 
research on Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. reclinatum may indicate that S. 
r. ssp. austrofloridense is more widespread in BCNP than is currently 
known.

     Table 1--Summary of the Status of the Known Occurrences of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Most recent population
             Population                     Ownership            estimate (year)                Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everglades National Park...........  National Park Service.  10,000-100,000 \1\      Extant.
                                                              (2013).
Camp Everglades....................  Boy Scouts of America.  Unknown...............  Extant.\2\
Big Cypress National Preserve......  National Park Service.  extant (2013) \3\.....  Extant.
Larry and Penny Thompson Park......  Miami-Dade County.....  73 (2005) \4\.........  Extant.
Nixon-Smiley Preserve..............  Miami-Dade County.....  0 (Unknown) \3\.......  Extirpated.
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve.......  Miami-Dade County.....  4 (2011) \5\..........  Extant.
Frog Pond..........................  South Florida Water     1 (2015) 1 2..........  Extant.
                                      Management District.
Sunny Palms Pineland...............  Miami-Dade County.....  2 (2011) \5\..........  Extant.
Pine Ridge Sanctuary...............  Private...............  Unknown...............  Extant.\3\
Lucille Hammock....................  Miami-Dade County.....  11-100 (2007) \3\.....  Extant.
South Dade Wetlands................  Miami-Dade County.....  Unknown (2007) \3\....  Extant.
Natural Forest Community #P-300....  Private...............  2-10 (2007) \3\.......  Extant.
Natural Forest Community #P-310....  Private...............  11-100 (2007) \3\.....  Extant.
Quail Roost Pineland...............  Miami-Dade County.....  2 (2011) \5\..........  Extant.
Grant Hammock......................  Unknown...............  Unknown (Unknown).....  Extirpated.\3\
Key Largo..........................  Unknown...............  No estimate (1948)....  Extirpated.\6\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gann 2015, p. 29.
\2\ Lange 2016, pers. comm.
\3\ Bradley et al. 2013, pp. 1-8.
\4\ Possley and McSweeney 2005, p. 1.
\5\ Possley 2011a and 2011b, pers. comm.
\6\ Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 42.

Biology
    Life History and Reproduction: Little is known about the life 
history of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, including 
pollination biology, seed production, or dispersal (Gann 2015, p. 31). 
Reproduction is sexual, with new plants generated from seeds. The 
subspecies produces flowers from April to May, and fruit ripens from 
June to July (Corogin and Judd 2014, pp. 410-412). The plants can stand 
partial inundation with fresh water for a portion of the year, but do 
not tolerate salinity. Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp.

[[Page 46695]]

austrofloridense frequently has numerous stem galls, but these galls do 
not appear to cause mortality to the plant and may in fact be an 
important part of the subspecies' natural history (Lange 2016, pers. 
comm.). In addition, the stem galls are often inhabited by acrobat ants 
(Crematogaster spp.) (Lange 2016, pers. comm.).
    Fire Ecology and Demography: There have been no detailed studies of 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense's relationship to fire; 
however, periodic fire is extremely important to maintaining habitat 
for this subspecies (Corogin and Judd 2014, p. 414). Therefore, 
historical declines have been partially attributed to habitat loss from 
fire suppression or inadequate fire management (ENP 2014, p. 173).

Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass)

Species Description
    Digitaria pauciflora is a small perennial clump-grass, appearing 
blue-green to gray with reddish-brown stems, typically 0.5 to 1 m (1.5 
to 3 ft) tall (Small 1933, p. 51). The leaves form a subtle zig-zag 
pattern as the leaf blades come off the stem at an angle. The flowers 
are dull green and very small, and are borne on wispy spikes on the 
ends of the leafy stems, with usually only a few flower clusters 
forming per clump of grass. Stolons (aboveground horizontal stems) are 
not present (Webster and Hatch, 1990, pp. 161-162); however, 
inflorescence branches have been known to produce roots infrequently at 
their nodes, and these have been observed producing new ramets 
(belowground horizontal stems) that allow for vegetative spread 
(Fellows et al. 2003, p. 142; Lange 2016, pers. comm.). Digitaria 
pauciflora is known to reproduce sexually (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 
50), with fruit production in the fall (Wendelberger and Maschinski 
2006, p. 3).
Taxonomy
    Digitaria pauciflora was first described in 1928, based on 
specimens collected in 1903 (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49), and was 
later placed in the genus Syntherisma (Small 1933, pp. 50-51). 
Subsequent authors (Hitchcock 1935, p. 561; Webster & Hatch 1990, p. 
161; Wunderlin 1998) have retained it in the genus Digitaria (Bradley 
and Gann 1999, p. 49). D. pauciflora was absent from collections from 
1939 until 1973, when it was rediscovered in ENP (Bradley and Gann 
1999, p. 49).
    The online Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants uses the name Digitaria 
pauciflora (Wunderlin and Hansen 2016, p. 1). The Integrated Taxonomic 
System (ITIS 2016, p. 1), NatureServe (2016, p. 1), and the Florida 
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) (Coile and 
Garland 2003, p. 19) indicates that its taxonomic status is accepted. 
We have carefully reviewed all taxonomic data to determine that 
Digitaria pauciflora is a valid taxon. The only synonym is Syntherisma 
pauciflora (Hitchcock) Hitchcock ex Small (ITIS 2016, p. 1).
Climate
    The climate of south Florida where Digitaria pauciflora occurs is 
classified as tropical savanna, as described above for Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense.
Habitat
    Digitaria pauciflora occurs predominantly within the seasonally 
flooded ecotone between pine rockland and marl prairie, although the 
species may overlap somewhat into both habitats (Bradley and Gann 1999, 
p. 49; Fellows et al. 2002, p. 79). Plants can withstand inundation 
with fresh water for one to several months each year (ENP 2014, p. 
172). These habitats are maintained by regular fire, and are prone, 
particularly marl prairie, to annual flooding for several months during 
the wet season (Gann et al. 2006, p. 13). Pine rocklands and marl 
prairies are described in detail in the proposed listing rule (81 FR 
70282; October 11, 2016).
Historical Range
    All known historical and current records for Digitaria pauciflora 
are summarized below in Table 2. The historical range of D. pauciflora 
consists of central and southern Miami-Dade County along the Miami Rock 
Ridge, from southern Miami to Long Pine Key region of ENP, a range of 
approximately 42 mi (67.6 km) (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49). Specimens 
of D. pauciflora were collected early in the 20th century throughout 
Miami-Dade County. The plant then went unreported for several decades 
before being rediscovered at Long Pine Key in 1973. D. pauciflora has 
subsequently been encountered consistently within Long Pine Key 
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49).
    A single Digitaria pauciflora plant was discovered in 1995, within 
marl prairie habitat at the Martinez Pinelands in the Richmond Pine 
Rocklands, an area of Miami-Dade County that retains the largest 
contiguous areas of pine rockland habitat outside of the Everglades. 
However, this plant has since disappeared (Herndon 1998, p. 88; Bradley 
and Gann 1999, p. 49; Gann 2015, p. 142). Three other historical 
occurrences in Miami-Dade County have been documented: (1) A site 
between Cutler and Longview Camp (last observed in 1903); (2) Jenkins 
Homestead (date unspecified); and (3) south Miami (last observed in 
1939) (Bradley 2007, pers. comm.). However, little is known regarding 
the status of these populations. The species was not found during a 2-
year project to survey and map rare and exotic plants along Florida 
Department of Transportation (FDOT) rights-of-way within Miami-Dade and 
Monroe Counties (Gordon et al. 2007, pp. 1, 38).
Current Range, Population Estimates, and Status
    The current range of Digitaria pauciflora includes ENP and BCNP 
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49; Gann et al. 2006, p. 3; Gann 2015, p. 
142). Ongoing surveys suggest the species occurs throughout Long Pine 
Key of ENP (Gann et al. 2006, p. 7; Gann 2015, p. 144) and is much 
wider-ranging than previously known in ENP, where populations may be 
characterized as abundant (Maschinski and Lange 2015, pp. 31-33).
    In 2002, Digitaria pauciflora was discovered within the Lostmans 
Pines region of BCNP in Monroe County (Bradley et al. 2013, p. 2). This 
represented the first known D. pauciflora occurrence outside Miami-Dade 
County (FNAI 2007, p. 191). The species is widely distributed within 
Lostmans Pines (Bradley et al. 2013, pp. 1-8). Subsequent surveys for 
the species within BCNP have documented up to nine occurrences, some of 
which contain an estimated 500-600 plants (Maschinski et al. 2003, p. 
141). Bradley et al. (2013, pp. 1-8) conducted surveys in the Gum 
Slough region of Lostmans Pines and indicated that the species is 
widely distributed within the study area. A total of 2,365 plants were 
counted within pineland and sawgrass based survey plots (Bradley et al. 
2013, pp. 3-4). The rangewide population estimate for D. pauciflora is 
100,000 to 200,000 individuals at Long Pine Key (Maschinski and Lange 
2015, p. 18) and greater than 10,000 individuals within BCNP (Bradley 
2007, pers. comm.). Although its preferred habitats are fire-dependent 
and flood adapted, large-scale wildfire and flooding can drastically 
reduce the size of D. pauciflora populations. For example, in the 
spring months of 2016, extensive wildfires in areas occupied by D. 
pauciflora likely reduced populations in ENP over a greater area than 
managed by prescribed fire in an average year. The populations will 
likely rebound;

[[Page 46696]]

however, regeneration could be severely hampered, based on the amount 
and duration of flooding during the region's late summer storm season. 
While Digitaria pauciflora populations remain abundant within ENP and 
BCNP, these areas represent only half of the species' historical range 
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 25; Gann 2015, p. 167). While D. pauciflora 
was known to occur throughout Miami-Dade County, all other populations 
are likely extirpated.

                 Table 2--Summary of the Status of the Known Occurrences of Digitaria pauciflora
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Most recent population
             Population                     Ownership               estimate                    Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everglades National Park...........  National Park Service.  100,000-200,000 (2015)  Extant.
                                                              1 4.
Camp Everglades....................  Boy Scouts of America.  100-1,000 (2016) \2\..  Extant.
Big Cypress National Preserve......  National Park Service.  >10,000 (2007) \3\....  Extant.
Martinez Pineland..................  Miami-Dade County.....  0 (1999) 2 3..........  Extirpated.
Cutler and Longview Camp...........  Unknown...............  Unknown (1903) \3\....  Extirpated.
Jenkins Homestead..................  Unknown...............  Unknown (date           Extirpated.
                                                              unspecified) \3\.
South Miami........................  Unknown...............  Unknown (1939) \3\....  Extirpated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gann 2015, p. 142.
\2\ Lange 2016, pers. comm.
\3\ Bradley 2007, pers. comm.
\4\ Maschinski and Lange 2015, p. 18.

Biology
    Life History and Reproduction: Little is known about the life 
history of Digitaria pauciflora, including pollination biology, seed 
production, or dispersal. Reproduction is sexual, with new plants 
generated from seeds (Bradley and Gann, 1999, p. 53). The species 
produces flowers from summer to late fall on both new and older growth, 
some plants have been observed to finish seeding as late as December 
(Fellows et al. 2002, p. 2; Gann 2015, p. 172). Plants can also spread 
clonally via rhizomes (Webster and Hatch, 1990, pp. 161-162). The 
plants can stand partial inundation with fresh water for a portion of 
the year, but do not tolerate salinity.
    Fire Ecology and Demography: Digitaria pauciflora population 
demographics or longevity have not been studied (Bradley and Gann, 
1999, p. 53; Fellows et al. 2002, p. 2). There have been no studies of 
the plant's relationship to fire; however, periodic fire is extremely 
important to maintaining habitat for this species (Bradley and Gann, 
1999, p. 53; ENP 2014, p. 226). Therefore, historical declines have 
been partially attributed to habitat loss from fire suppression or 
inadequate fire management. The species shows patch dynamics, 
colonizing new areas and undergoing local extinctions with high rates 
of turnover (Gann 2015, p. 142). Plants with ``flashy'' or ``boom and 
bust'' demographic patterns are more susceptible to stochastic 
extinction events. ENP has burned populations of D. pauciflora during 
the wet and dry season, and both appear suitable to maintain 
populations of the plant (ENP 2014, p. 226).

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat)

Species Description
    Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is an ascending to erect 
perennial herb. The stems are hairy and often reddish. The leaf blades 
range from kidney-shaped or triangle-shaped and elliptic to oval. The 
fruit is a 2-mm broad, pubescent capsule. The seeds are 1 mm long, 
transversely wrinkled, and yellowish in color (Small 1933, p. 795). C. 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum reproduces sexually (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 
25). Fruit production is year-round, with a peak in the fall 
(Wendelberger and Maschinski 2006, p. 2).
Taxonomy
    Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum was first described by Small in 
1905, based on specimens collected in eastern Miami-Dade County (Small 
1905, pp. 429-430). Initially, Small referred to these specimens as C. 
pinetorum but recognized that it was closely related to Chamaesyce 
deltoidea. Herndon (1993, pp. 38-51) included C. pinetorum within the 
C. deltoidea complex, which is composed of three other taxa, two 
occurring farther north on the Miami Rock Ridge, and one occurring on 
Big Pine Key in the lower Florida Keys (Monroe County). The three taxa 
on the Miami Rock Ridge have distinct, but adjacent, ranges. 
Subsequently, Herndon (1993, pp. 38-51) has placed all four taxa at the 
same taxonomic level, treating each as a distinct subspecies under 
Chamaesyce deltoidea (C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, C. deltoidea ssp. 
serpyllum, C. deltoidea ssp. adhaerens, and C. deltoidea ssp. 
deltoidea). Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea and C. deltoidea ssp. 
adhaerens occur north of known C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum populations, 
while Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum is endemic to Big Pine Key. 
Wunderlin and Hansen (2016, p. 1) follow Herndon's treatment in using 
C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum. Some modern authors place the genus 
Chamaesyce into the genus Euphorbia sensu lato (Yang and Berry 2011, 
pp. 1486-1503). Gann (2015, p. 168) indicates that if placed into the 
genus Euphorbia, the correct name of pineland sandmat is Euphorbia 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum.
    The online Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants uses the name 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Small) Herndon (Wunderlin and 
Hansen 2016, p. 1). NatureServe (2016, p. 1) and FDACS (Coile and 
Garland 2003, p. 11) indicate that C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is 
accepted. However, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 
2016, p. 1) accepts Euphorbia deltoidea ssp. pinetorum as the 
scientific name for the subspecies (Gann 2015, p. 168). We have 
carefully reviewed all taxonomic data to determine that C. deltoidea 
ssp. pinetorum is a valid taxon.
Climate
    The climate of south Florida where Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum occurs is classified as tropical savanna, as described above 
for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense.
Habitat
    Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum occurs in pine rocklands 
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 24). Pine rocklands are maintained by 
regular fire, and are prone to annual flooding for several months 
during the wet season (Gann et al. 2006, p. 13). However, C. deltoidea 
ssp. pinetorum generally occurs in higher elevation pine rocklands at 
Long Pine Key in ENP, in areas rarely subject to flooding (Gann 2015, 
p. 169).

[[Page 46697]]

    A detailed description of pine rockland habitat is discussed in the 
proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282; October 11, 2016).
Historical Range
    Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum occurred historically only with 
the southern portion of the Miami Rock Ridge, from Homestead to the 
Long Pine Key region of ENP, a range of approximately 42 mi (67.6 km) 
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 24). C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum has been 
encountered consistently within Long Pine Key, as well as several 
County-owned conservation lands adjacent to the ENP (Gann 2015, p. 
167). All known historical and current records for Chamaesyce deltoidea 
ssp. pinetorum are summarized in Table 3, below.
Current Range, Population Estimates, and Status
    The current range of Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is similar 
to the historical range, although 98 percent of the pine rocklands (the 
species' only habitat) outside of the ENP has been lost to development 
(Kernan and Bradley 1996, p. 2). The total population size of 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is estimated to be 14,500-146,000 
individuals, with the majority of the population occurring on Long Pine 
Key (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 25; Gann 2015, p. 167). However, while 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is most abundant within ENP, pine 
rockland fragments outside of the Everglades represent about half the 
subspecies' extant range (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 25; Bradley 2007, 
pers. comm.; Gann 2015, p. 167).

         Table 3--Summary of the Status of the Known Occurrences of Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Most recent population
             Population                     Ownership               estimate                    Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everglades National Park...........  National Park Service.  10,000-100,000 (2011)   Extant.
                                                              \5\.
Camp Everglades....................  Boy Scouts of America.  Unknown...............  Extant.\1\
Florida City Pineland..............  Miami-Dade County.....  33 (2009) \2\.........  Extant.
Navy Wells.........................  Miami-Dade County.....  1,000-10,000 (2007) 2   Extant.
                                                              3.
Navy Wells #39.....................  Miami-Dade County.....  500 or more (2013) \2\  Extant.
Palm Drive Pineland................  Miami-Dade County.....  0 (2012) \2\..........  Possibly Extirpated.
Pine Ridge Sanctuary...............  Private...............  10-100 (2011) 3 4.....  Extant.
Rock Pit #39.......................  Miami-Dade County.....  419 (2012) \2\........  Extant.
Seminole Wayside Park..............  Miami-Dade County.....  614 (2015) \2\........  Extant.
Fuchs Hammock Addition.............  Miami-Dade County.....  ~20 (2011) \2\........  Extant.
Sunny Palms Pineland...............  Miami-Dade County.....  1,000-10,000 (2015)     Extant.
                                                              \2\.
John Kunkel Small Pineland.........  Institute for Regional  Present (2006) 2 3....  Extant.
                                      Conservation.
Natural Forest Community (NFC) P-    private...............  11-100 (2007) \3\.....  Extant.
 330.
NFC P-338..........................  private...............  1,001-10,000 (2007)     Extant.
                                                              \3\.
NFC P-339..........................  private...............  11-100 (2007) \3\.....  Extant.
NFCP-347...........................  private...............  11-100 (2007) \3\.....  Extant.
NFCP-411...........................  private...............  101-1,000 (2007) \3\..  Extant.
NFCP-413...........................  private...............  11-100 (2007) \3\.....  Extant.
NFCP-416...........................  private...............  11-100 (2007) \3\.....  Extant.
NFCP-445...........................  private...............  1,001-10,000 (2007)     Extant.
                                                              \3\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lange 2016, pers. comm.
\2\ Possley 2017, pers. comm.
\3\ Bradley 2007, pers. comm.
\4\ FNAI 2011.
\5\ Gann 2015, p. 167.

Biology
    Life History and Reproduction: Little is known about the life 
history of Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum. Reproduction is sexual, 
but little is known about the reproductive biology and ecology of the 
subspecies (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 25; Gann 2015, p. 167). Herndon 
(1998, pp. 13-14) found up to 88 percent of plants survived more than 3 
years, showing that it is a somewhat long-lived taxon. The extensive 
root system of C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum also suggests that it is a 
long-lived plant (Maschinski et al. 2003, p. 179). Some of the plants 
recorded as dead during surveys may have instead been in a cryptic 
phase (Herndon 1998, pp. 13-14); Gann 2015, p. 167). Pollinators are 
unknown; some other species of Chamaesyce are completely reliant on 
insects for pollination and seed production, while others are self-
pollinating (Maschinski et al. 2003, p. 179; Gann 2015, p. 168). 
Pollinators may include bees, flies, ants, and wasps (Ehrenfeld 1979, 
p. 95; Gann 2015, p. 168). Dispersal is unknown for Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum; however, many seed capsules in similar 
Chamaesyce species are explosively dehiscent, a form of dispersal that 
flings seeds far from the parent plant (Maschinski et al. 2003, p. 179; 
Gann 2015, p. 168). Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is thought to 
have a similar, but reduced, level of dispersal (Lange 2016, pers. 
comm.). This species is known to flower and fruit year round 
(Wendelberger and Maschinski 2006, p. 2). Peaks in fruiting for C. 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum occur in the fall and are stimulated by fire 
(Wendelberger and Maschinski 2006, p. 2). The plants can stand partial 
inundation with fresh water for a portion of the year, but do not 
tolerate salinity.
    Fire Ecology and Demography: There have been no studies of 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum demographics. However, the 
subspecies is not shade tolerant, and it requires periodic low-
intensity fires to reduce competition by woody species to maintain 
habitat (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 26; ENP 2014, p. 170). Therefore, 
historical declines have been partially attributed to habitat loss from 
fire suppression or inadequate fire management.

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida prairie-clover)

Species Description
    Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana is a short-lived (less than 8 
years) perennial shrub that is 2.6 to 9.8 ft (0.8 to 3.0 m) tall with a 
light brown woody

[[Page 46698]]

stem and non-woody, light brown or reddish branches. The leaves are 
composed of 9 to 15 oval, gland-tipped leaflets, and are gland-dotted 
on the underside. The flowers are in small loose heads at ends of 
hairy, glandular stalks, less than 0.4 in long. The flower color is 
white and maroon; each of the petals is different lengths and shapes. 
The fruit is a small one-seeded pod, mostly enclosed by the hairy, 
gland-dotted calyx (bracts at base of each flower) (adapted from Long 
and Lakela 1971, p. 478; Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 42; Maschinski et 
al. 2014, p. 44).
Taxonomy
    Chapman (1886, p.102) was the first to report this taxon in 
Florida, calling it the tropical Dalea domingensis, based on specimens 
collected on Key Biscayne. Small (1913, p. 89) accepted this epithet 
but included the taxon in the genus Parosela, making the plant P. 
domingensis. Rydberg (1920, p. 114) renamed the plant, calling it 
Parosela floridana, which was retained by Small (1933, pp. 694-695). 
Clausen (1946a, p. 85) reviewed the taxonomy of Florida and West Indian 
Dalea and considered them all to be the same species. Clausen (1946a, 
p. 85) also found that the name D. domingensis was a homonym of D. 
emphysodes, and published the name D. emphysodes ssp. domingensis. 
Clausen (1946b, p. 572) later discovered that his use of the name D. 
emphysodes was in error, and renamed the plants D. carthagenensis ssp. 
domingensis. Long and Lakela (1971, p. 478) accepted this usage. 
Barneby (1977), in a monograph of the genus, also found that Florida 
plants were distinct from West Indian plants, citing differences in 
leaf characters, naming the Florida species D. carthagenensis var. 
floridana. Wunderlin (1998) has followed this treatment.
    The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (2016, p. 1) indicates 
that the taxonomic standing for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
(Rydb.) Barneby is accepted. The online Atlas of Florida Vascular 
Plants (Wunderlin and Hansen 2016, p. 1) uses the name D. 
carthagenensis var. floridana, as does NatureServe (2016, p. 1). FDACS 
uses the name Dalea carthagenensis and notes that D. carthagenensis 
var. floridana is endemic (Coile and Garland 2003, p. 17). In summary, 
there is consensus that D. carthagenensis var. floridana is a distinct 
taxon. We have carefully reviewed the available taxonomic information 
to reach the conclusion that D. carthagenensis var. floridana is a 
valid taxon.
Climate
    The climate of south Florida where Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana occurs is classified as tropical savanna as described above 
for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense.
Habitat
    Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana grows in pine rockland, 
rockland hammock, marl prairie, and coastal berm, and in the ecotones 
between these habitats (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 43). It occurs in 
sparsely vegetated, well-lit, open areas that are maintained by 
disturbance. However, the dynamic nature of the habitat means that 
areas not currently open may become open in the future as a result of 
canopy disruption from hurricanes or invasive plant management, while 
areas currently open may develop more dense canopy over time, 
eventually rendering that portion of the hammock unsuitable for D. 
carthagenensis var. floridana. Detailed descriptions of pine rockland, 
marl prairie, rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitats are discussed 
in the proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282; October 11, 2016). The 
species may also occur along roadsides within these habitats (Gann et 
al. 2006, p. 10). A detailed description of roadside habitat is 
presented in the proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282; October 11, 2016).
Historical Range
    The historical range of Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
includes Miami-Dade, Monroe, Collier, and Palm Beach Counties (Gann et 
al. 2015, pp. 25-26). There have been no reports of this plant from 
Palm Beach County since 1918 (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 42). In Miami-
Dade County, the plant has been extirpated from a number of historical 
locations, including Castellow Hammock, ENP, the Coral Gables area, 
pinelands south of the Miami River, and Cox Hammock (Bradley and Gann 
1999, pp. 42-43; Bradley 2007, pers. comm.; Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 
39). Gann et al. (2002, pp. 408-411) accounted for essentially every 
herbarium specimen and reliable sighting. D. carthagenensis var. 
floridana is presumed to be extirpated within ENP (Gann 2015, pp. 25-
26). All known historical and current records for D. carthagenensis 
var. floridana are summarized below in Table 4.
Current Range, Population Estimates, and Status
    The current range of Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana includes 
BCNP (Monroe and Collier Counties), three Miami-Dade County 
conservation areas, and three additional unprotected lands within the 
Cutler Bay region of Miami-Dade County (Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 39)
    In 1999, Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana was rediscovered 
within BCNP (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 42). Maschinski et al. (2014, p. 
31) subsequently surveyed the four extant populations on BCNP, finding 
two of them. An area north of Oasis Visitor Center contained 236 plants 
(of various ages) and represents the largest extant population within 
BCNP. The second extant population was in the Pinecrest region (along 
Loop Road) of BCNP, an historical location within the Park; however, 
only 17 plants were encountered. D. carthagenensis var. floridana was 
not found at 11-Mile Road, nor at a second location along Loop Road, 
during the surveys.
    Extensive surveys of extant Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
populations at Charles Deering Estate, RHMP, and Crandon Park within 
Miami-Dade County have been conducted over the past decade (Maschinski 
et al. 2014, pp. 31-34). During 2003 to 2007, the population at Charles 
Deering Estate ranged from between 50 and 80 individuals, with the 
number of seedlings ranging from 3 to 54. However, beginning in 2008, 
studies documented pulses in seedling establishment (Maschinski et al. 
2014, p. 33). In 2010, the total population size (seedlings and woody 
plants) was 356 individuals. The majority of these were seedlings and 
basal re-sprouts from a fire that affected approximately one-third of 
the population (Maschinski et al. 2010, p. 24). A 2014 survey found 347 
plants (Maschinski et al. 2015, p. 30). However, the population 
declined to 164 and 170 in 2016 and 2017, respectively (Lange et al. 
2016, p. 10; Possley 2017, pers. comm.).
    The population at RHMP declined from 31 plants in 2004 to just 1 
woody plant and 3 seedlings in 2008. In 2009, Fairchild Tropical 
Botanic Garden (FTBG) initiated reintroduction of Dalea carthagenensis 
var. floridana at RHMP, documenting 52 established plants from the 
6,000 seeds sown (Maschinski et al. 2015, p. 30). Subsequently, those 
plants have reproduced, resulting in several generations of Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana within the reintroduction area. A density 
of 350 individuals was recorded in early 2017 (Possley 2017, pers. 
comm.) at this location.
    In 2003, Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana was rediscovered 
within coastal uplands at Crandon Park for the first time since 1966 
(Maschinski et al. 2010, p. 28). The population at Crandon Park appears 
to be stable; however, it is highly localized to a small area of

[[Page 46699]]

approximately 145 square miles (Possley and Maschinski 2009, p. 10). 
During 2007, FTBG initiated a demographic study of D. carthagenensis 
var. floridana. Sampling plots found 200 plants of various sizes 
resulting in a population estimate of 966 plants at the site 
(Maschinski 2007, pers. comm.; Possley and Maschinski 2009, p. 10). 
Subsequent surveys have shown the population to vary considerably, 
possibly due to a short lifespan or plant dormancy (Possley and 
Maschinski 2009, p. 10). Surveys at Crandon Park identified 288, 168, 
and 416 individuals, in 2014, 2015, and 2016 respectively (Maschinski 
et al. 2015, p. 32; Lange et al. 2016, p. 12). Additional known 
populations within Miami-Dade County are summarized below in Table 4.

         Table 4--Summary of the Status of the Known Occurrences of Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Most recent population
             Population                     Ownership               estimate                    Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everglades National Park...........  National Park Service.  ......................  Extirpated (1964).
Big Cypress National Preserve,       National Park Service.  236 (2014) \1\........  Extant.
 North of Oasis Visitor Center.
Big Cypress National Preserve, 11-   National Park Service.  0 (2014) \1\..........  Extirpated (2014).
 Mile Road.
Big Cypress National Preserve,       National Park Service.  17 (2014) \1\.........  Extant.
 Pinecrest.
Charles Deering Estate.............  Miami-Dade County.....  170 (2017) \5\........  Extant.
Virginia Key.......................  City of Miami.........  4 (2010) \2\..........  Extant.
R. Hardy Matheson Preserve.........  Miami-Dade County.....  350 (2017) \2\........  Extant.
Crandon Park.......................  Miami-Dade County.....  416 (2016) \3\........  Extant.
Strawberry Fields Hammock (next to   Private...............  17 (2014) \4\.........  Extant.
 Natural Forest Community).
Florida Department of Health and     Private...............  21 (2014) \4\.........  Extant.
 Rehabilitative Services.
Florida Power and Light property...  Private...............  2-10 (2007) \4\.......  Extant.
Coral Gables area..................  Private...............  ......................  Extirpated (1967).\6\
Cox Hammock........................  Private...............  ......................  Extirpated (1930).\6\
Castellow Hammock Preserve.........  Miami-Dade County.....  ......................  Extirpated (1975).\6\
Pineland South of Miami River......  Unknown...............  Unknown...............  Unknown.\6\
Palm Beach County..................  Private...............  ......................  Extirpated (1918).\6\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maschinski et al. (2014, p. 31).
\2\ Maschinski et al. (2015, pp. 30-33).
\3\ Lange et al. (2016, p. 12).
\4\ Maschinski et al. (2014, p. 39).
\5\ Possley 2017, pers. comm.
\6\ Bradley 2007, pers. comm.

Biology
    Life History and Reproduction: Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
appears to be a short-lived (less than 8 years) perennial with a 
persistent seed bank (Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 45; Lange et al. 2016, 
p.15). D. carthagenensis var. floridana produces flowers from October 
to March and fruit ripen from November to April. The seed maturation 
period is January to May, with a peak in February and March. Larger 
plants can produce over 500 seeds. Seedling recruitment varies widely 
from year to year, with lower recruitment in drier years. Seedlings and 
juveniles experience rapid growth in their first 2 years (Maschinski et 
al. 2014, p. 45). The plants can withstand partial inundation with 
fresh water for a portion of the year, but do not tolerate salinity.
    Ongoing survey data were used from the Crandon Park population to 
conduct a preliminary population viability analysis (PVA) (Maschinski 
et al. 2014). The population at Crandon Park declined by 33 percent 
from 2007 to 2009. High seedling recruitment increased numbers in 2010, 
which stabilized the population until 2014, when a pulse of high 
recruitment occurred. The study indicated that 3 years had declining 
population growth and 4 years were stable or increasing, a cyclic 
pattern characteristic of short-lived species. The PVA indicated that 
the external cues (temperature and soil moisture) required to break 
dormancy positively influenced Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
population dynamics. However, if coupled with seedling mortality, 
serious population decline resulted. Low winter temperature coupled 
with average rainfall resulted in high seedling recruitment and good 
seedling survival; however, if high rainfall followed cold winter 
temperatures, as was noted for winter 2010, seedling mortality was high 
(Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 41).
    Fire Ecology and Demography: Periodic fire is extremely important 
to maintaining habitat for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
(Maschinski et al. 2015, p. 39). The most recent surveys of RHMP 
indicated a stable D. carthagenensis var. floridana population, 
including 295 seedlings that germinated following a prescribed burn 
(Maschinski et al, 2015, p. 30). Therefore, historical declines have 
been partially attributed to habitat loss from fire suppression or 
inadequate fire management.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any one of five 
factors affecting its continued existence. In this section, we 
summarize the biological condition of

[[Page 46700]]

each of the plant species and its resources, and the factors affecting 
them, to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that 
viability.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana have experienced substantial destruction, modification, and 
curtailment of their habitat and ranges. Specific threats to these 
plants included in this factor include habitat loss, fragmentation, and 
modification caused by development (i.e., conversion to both urban and 
agricultural land uses) and inadequate fire management. Each of these 
threats and its specific effects on these plants are discussed in 
detail below.
Human Population Growth, Development, and Agricultural Conversion
    The modification and destruction of the habitats that support 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana has been extreme in most areas of Miami-Dade and Monroe 
Counties, thereby reducing the plants' current range and abundance in 
Florida. The pine rockland community of south Florida, in which these 
species primarily occur, is critically imperiled locally and globally 
(FNAI 2010, p. 27). Destruction of pine rocklands and rockland hammocks 
has occurred since the beginning of the 1900s. Extensive land clearing 
for human population growth, development, and agriculture in Miami-Dade 
and Monroe Counties has altered, degraded, or destroyed thousands of 
acres of these once abundant ecosystems.
    In Miami-Dade County, development and agriculture have reduced pine 
rockland habitat by 90 percent in mainland south Florida. Pine rockland 
habitat in Miami-Dade County, including ENP, was reduced to about 11 
percent of its natural extent, from approximately 74,000 hectares (ha) 
(183,000 acres (ac)) in the early 1900s, to only 8,140 ha (20,100 ac) 
in 1996 (Kernan and Bradley 1996, p. 2). The largest remaining intact 
pine rockland (approximately 2,313 ha (5,716 ac)) is Long Pine Key in 
ENP. Outside of ENP, only about 1 percent of the pine rocklands on the 
Miami Rock Ridge have escaped clearing, and much of what is left are 
small remnants scattered throughout the Miami metropolitan area, 
isolated from other natural areas (Herndon 1998, p. 1). Habitat loss 
continues to occur in these plants' range, and most remaining suitable 
habitat has been negatively altered through human activity (illegal 
clearing, dumping), preclusion of fire, and introduction of nonnative 
species.
    Significant remaining pine rockland habitat occurs on private lands 
and publically owned lands that are not dedicated to or managed for 
conservation. The species occurring on this remaining suitable habitat 
face threats from habitat loss and degradation, and threats are 
expected to accelerate with increased development. The human population 
within Miami-Dade County is currently greater than 2.4 million people, 
and the population is expected to grow to more than 4 million by 2060, 
an annual increase of roughly 30,000 people (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 
20).
    Some of the known populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana occur on public 
conservation lands. Miami-Dade County has developed a network of 
publicly owned conservation lands within Miami-Dade County, but 
prescribed fire is lacking at many of these sites. ENP and BCNP 
actively manage their respective pine rockland habitat with prescribed 
fire. However, any extant populations of these plants or suitable 
habitat that may occur on non-conservation public or private land, such 
as within the Richmond Pine Rocklands, are vulnerable to habitat loss 
directly from development or indirectly by lack of management.
    The marl prairie habitat that also supports Sideroxylon reclinatum 
ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana has similarly been 
destroyed by the rapid development of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. 
At least some of the occurrences reported from this habitat may be the 
result of colonization that occurred after the habitat was artificially 
dried-out due to local or regional drainage. Marl prairie on non-
conservation public or private land remains vulnerable to development, 
which could lead to the loss of populations of these species.
    Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense occurs in numerous 
pine rocklands outside of ENP within Miami-Dade County, most of which 
are impacted by some degree by development. Two privately owned sites 
in Miami-Dade County supporting Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense are vulnerable to habitat loss from development. Eight 
sites that support the species are public land, which provides for some 
management and protection. However, one population on public land, the 
county-owned Nixon-Smiley Preserve, is extirpated.
    Two extant populations of Digitaria pauciflora are located at ENP 
and BCNP, public lands managed for conservation. The third extant 
population is located at Camp Everglades, a property within ENP owned 
by the Boy Scouts of America; this property is managed, in coordination 
with ENP, for conservation. Outside the protected lands of ENP and 
BCNP, Digitaria pauciflora occurred throughout Miami-Dade County, 
including as recently as 1995 within remnant marl prairie habitats of 
the Martinez Pineland. Martinez Pineland is adjacent to several other 
remnant pine rocklands that form the largest contiguous area of pine 
rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County. However, D. pauciflora has since 
disappeared (Herndon 1998, p. 88; Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49) from 
Martinez Pineland, and plans are being reviewed for development of 
private portions (see discussion of Richmond Pine Rocklands, below). 
Three other historical occurrences in Miami-Dade County had been 
documented; however, D. pauciflora is extirpated from these sites; the 
four historical sites comprise half of the species' historical range 
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 25; Gann 2015, p. 167). Surveys did not 
document other extant D. pauciflora populations along FDOT rights-of-
way within Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties (Gordon et al. 2007, pp. 1, 
38).
    Eight populations of Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum located on 
private land are vulnerable to habitat loss due to development. Ten 
extant populations occur on public land and are largely protected from 
development.
    Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana has been extirpated from a 
number of historical locations within Miami-Dade County, including ENP 
for unknown reasons, and by development at Castellow Hammock, in the 
Coral Gables area, the pinelands south of the Miami River, and Cox 
Hammock (Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 42-43; Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 
39). In addition, there have been no reports of D. carthagenensis var. 
floridana from Palm Beach County since 1918, and this area is now 
densely developed (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 42). Six populations occur 
on public lands and are protected from development. Three extant 
populations occur on private land and

[[Page 46701]]

are vulnerable to habitat loss from development. However, because this 
is a highly localized plant, which is difficult to survey for, it is 
possible that additional extant populations exist (Lange 2016, pers. 
comm.).
    Currently, there are plans to develop 55 ha (137 ac) of the largest 
remaining parcel of pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County, the 
Richmond Pine Rocklands, with a shopping center and residential 
construction (Ram 2014, p. 2). This parcel has been called the ``the 
largest and most important area of pine rockland in Miami-Dade County 
outside of Everglades National Park'' (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 4). 
Although Digitaria pauciflora is extirpated from Richmond Pine 
Rocklands, populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
along with numerous other federally listed species, still occur there. 
The Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management 
(DERM) has completed a management plan for portions of the Richmond 
Pine Rocklands under a grant from the Service and is leading the 
restoration and management of the Richmond Pine Rocklands (Bradley and 
Gann 1999, p. 4). The developer has proposed to enter into a habitat 
conservation plan (Ram 2014, p. 2) in conjunction with their plans to 
develop their portion of the site and was required by Miami-Dade County 
Natural Forest Community (NFC) regulations to set aside and manage 17 
ha (43 ac) of pine rockland and associated habitats. A second project 
that would result in the loss of pine rockland habitat has been 
proposed for the Richmond Pine Rocklands. It includes expanding the 
Miami Zoo complex to develop an amusement park and commercial entities. 
These development projects will result in the loss of pine rockland 
habitat that maintains a population of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense as well as several federally listed species, and may 
preclude future recovery options for the four plants (such as 
compromising the land managers' ability to burn within Richmond Pine 
Rocklands).
Habitat Fragmentation
    The remaining pine rocklands in the Miami metropolitan area are 
severely fragmented and isolated from each other. Habitat fragmentation 
reduces the size of plant populations and increases spatial isolation 
of remnants. The effects of fragmentation on Angadenia berteroi 
(pineland golden trumpet) show that abundance and fragment size were 
positively related (Barrios et al. 2011, p. 1062). Plant species 
richness and fragment size are positively correlated (although some 
small fragments supported nearly as many species as the largest 
fragment) in south Florida pine rocklands (Possley et al. 2008, p. 
385). Composition of fragmented habitat typically differs from that of 
intact forests, as isolation and edge effects increase leading to 
increased abundance of disturbance-adapted species (weedy species, 
nonnative invasive species) and lower rates of pollination and 
propagule dispersal (Laurence and Bierregaard 1997, pp. 347-350.; Noss 
and Csuti 1997, pp. 284-299). The degree to which fragmentation 
negatively impacts the dispersal abilities of Sideroxylon reclinatum 
ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana is unknown. In the 
historical landscape, where pine rockland occurred within a mosaic of 
wetlands, water may have acted as a dispersal vector for all pine 
rockland seeds. In the current fragmented landscape, this type of 
dispersal would no longer be possible for any of the Miami-Dade 
populations, because they exist in isolated habitat patches surrounded 
by miles of unsuitable habitat (agriculture and urban development) on 
every side. While additional dispersal vectors may include animals and 
(in certain locations) mowing equipment, it is likely that 
fragmentation has effectively reduced these plants' ability to 
disperse.
    While pollination research has not been conducted for Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, 
research regarding other species and ecosystems provides valuable 
information regarding potential effects of fragmentation to these 
plants. Effects of fragmentation may include changes to the pollinator 
community as a result of limitation of pollinator-required resources 
(e.g., reduced availability of rendezvous plants, nesting and roosting 
sites, and nectar/pollen); these changes may include changes to 
pollinator community composition, species abundance and diversity, and 
pollinator behavior (Rathcke and Jules 1993, pp. 273-275; Kremen and 
Ricketts 2000, p. 1227; Harris and Johnson 2004, pp. 30-33). As a 
result, plants in fragmented habitats may experience lower visitation 
rates, which in turn may result in reduced seed production of the 
pollinated plant (which may lead to reduced seedling recruitment), 
reduced pollen dispersal, increased inbreeding, reduced genetic 
variability, and ultimately reduced population viability (Rathcke and 
Jules 1993, p. 275; Goverde et al. 2002, pp. 297-298; Harris and 
Johnson 2004, pp. 33-34).
    The effects of fragmentation on fire go beyond edge effects and 
include reduced likelihood and extent of fires, and altered behavior 
and characteristics (e.g., intensity) of those fires that do occur. 
Habitat fragmentation encourages the suppression of naturally occurring 
fires, and has prevented fire from moving across the landscape in a 
natural way, resulting in an increased amount of habitat suffering from 
these negative impacts. High fragmentation of small habitat patches 
within an urban matrix discourages the use of prescribed fire as well 
due to logistical difficulties (see ``Fire Management,'' below).
    Forest fragments in urban settings are also subject to increased 
likelihood of certain types of human-related disturbance, such as the 
dumping of trash (Chavez and Tynon 2000, p. 405) and illegal clearing. 
The many effects of habitat fragmentation may work in concert to 
negatively impact the local persistence of a species, especially in 
small populations (see discussion below); when a species' range of 
occurrence is limited, as with these four plants, threats to local 
persistence increase extinction risk.
Fire Management
    One of the primary threats to Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana is habitat 
modification and degradation through inadequate fire management, which 
includes both the lack of prescribed fire and suppression of natural 
fires. Where the term ``fire-suppressed'' is used below, it describes 
degraded pine rockland conditions resulting from a lack of adequate 
fire (natural or prescribed) in the landscape. Historically, frequent 
(approximately twice per decade), lightning-induced fires were a vital 
component in maintaining native vegetation and ecosystem functioning 
within south Florida pine rocklands (see the ``Habitat'' discussion 
under the heading Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, above). 
A period of just 10 years without fire may result in a marked decrease 
in the number of herbaceous species due to the effects of shading and 
litter accumulation (FNAI 2010, p. 63). Exclusion of fire for 
approximately 25 years will likely result in gradual hammock 
development over that time period, leaving a system that is very fire 
resistant if additional pre-fire management (e.g., mechanical hardwood 
removal) is not undertaken.

[[Page 46702]]

    Today, natural fires are unlikely to occur or are likely to be 
suppressed in the remaining, highly fragmented pine rockland habitat. 
The suppression of natural fires has reduced the size of the areas that 
burn, and habitat fragmentation has prevented fire from moving across 
the landscape in a natural way. Without fire, successional climax from 
pine rockland to rockland hammock takes 10 to 25 years, and 
displacement of native species by invasive, nonnative plants often 
occurs. All occurrences of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana are affected by some 
degree from inadequate fire management, with the primary threat being 
shading by hardwoods (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 15; Bradley and Gann 
2005, entire). Shading may also be caused by a fire-suppressed (and, in 
some cases, planted) pine canopy that has evaded the natural thinning 
effects that fire has on seedlings and smaller trees, for example, as 
is seen on the pine rockland habitat on the Miami Rock Ridge (Gann 
2013, pers. comm.). Understory plants such as Sideroxylon reclinatum 
ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana are shaded out after 
just 10 years without fire, by hardwoods and nonnatives alike.
    Whether the dense canopy is composed of pine, hardwoods, 
nonnatives, or a combination, seed germination and establishment are 
inhibited in fire-suppressed habitat due to accumulated leaf litter, 
which also changes soil moisture and nutrient availability (Hiers et 
al. 2007, pp. 811-812). This alteration to microhabitat can also 
inhibit seedling establishment as well as negatively influence flower 
and fruit production (Wendelberger and Maschinski 2009, pp. 849-851), 
thereby reducing sexual reproduction in fire-adapted species such as 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana (Geiger 2002, pp. 78-79, 81-83).
    After an extended period of inadequate fire management in pine 
rocklands, it becomes necessary to control invading native hardwoods 
mechanically, as excess growth of native hardwoods would result in a 
hot fire, which can cause mortality of pines and destroy the rootstocks 
and seed banks of other native plants. Mechanical treatments cannot 
entirely replace fire because pine trees, understory shrubs, grasses, 
and herbs all contribute to an ever-increasing layer of leaf litter, 
covering herbs and preventing germination, as discussed above. Leaf 
litter will continue to accumulate even if hardwoods are removed 
mechanically. In addition, the ashes left by fires provide important 
post-fire nutrient cycling, which is not provided via mechanical 
removal.
    Studies on the impacts of fire on Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana are ongoing. Fire is 
critical in maintaining the open understory and species diversity in 
pine rocklands and marl prairies where these species occur, as well as 
to reduce populations of nonnative plant species. Fire maintains the 
ecotone (transition) between saw grass marsh, pine rockland, and 
rockland hammock habitats where S. reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense 
grows.
    It is anticipated that some natural mortality of Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana may 
occur from fire, especially more intense fires. S. reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense and C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum grow in wet marl soils 
and soil deposits within cracks in the limestone bedrock, which 
provides protection to the roots and allow plants to resprout following 
fire. C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, in particular, possesses a well-
developed rootstock that is protected from fire (ENP 2014, p. 203). 
Herndon (1998, p. 28) pointed out that the life history of C. deltoidea 
ssp. pinetorum includes a cryptic stage, making interpretation of 
mortality of aboveground parts difficult.
    Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana demonstrate differences in mortality or long-term population 
impacts as a result of wet or dry season burns. Indirect evidence 
suggests that burning in either season is suitable to maintain 
populations of S. reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, and C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum in pine rocklands. 
Prescribed fire in ENP was originally conducted during the dry season. 
Fire management was gradually shifted to wet season burning in an 
effort to better mimic natural lightning ignited fire patterns. As a 
result, pinelands and marl prairies in ENP where S. reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, and C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum occur 
have been burned in both the wet season and dry season. Long-term 
maintenance of populations in those areas indicates that either 
practice will sustain populations of these species.
    Federal (Service, National Park Service [NPS]), State (Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)), and County (Miami-Dade, DERM) 
land managers, and nonprofits (Institute for Regional Conservation 
(IRC)) implement prescribed fire on public and private lands within the 
ranges of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana. Even in areas under active management, 
some portions are typically fire-suppressed. Nevertheless, all of these 
sites retain a contingent of native species and a seedbank capable of 
responding to fire.
    While ENP, BCNP, and various Miami-Dade County conservation lands 
(e.g., Navy Wells Pineland Preserve) each attempt to administer 
prescribed burns, the threat of inadequate fire management still 
remains. The pine rocklands in the Long Pine Key region of ENP remained 
largely fire-suppressed for the past decade as ENP updated its fire 
management plan. Although prescribed fire was returned to Long Pine Key 
in early 2016, many areas retained substantial amounts of unburned 
understory vegetation. As a result, despite reintroduction of a fire 
regime, several large-scale wildfires ignited during the spring months 
of 2016, which burned up to 50 percent of the pine rocklands in Long 
Pine Key. Ultimately, this combination of prescribed burns and natural 
fires (if not too hot or lasting too long) is likely to improve 
conditions for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum populations within 
ENP. For example, at 3 to 6 months post-burn, these species appear to 
be recolonizing burned areas (Sadle 2016, pers. comm.; Salvato 2016, 
pers. obs.). However, this chain of events also demonstrates the threat 
prolonged or insufficient fire management may pose to local populations 
of an imperiled species, even on public conservation lands.
    While management of some County conservation lands includes regular 
burning, other lands remain severely fire-suppressed. Implementation of 
a prescribed fire program in Miami-Dade County has been hampered by a 
shortage of resources, and by logistical difficulties and public 
concern related to burning next to residential areas. Many homes have 
been built in a

[[Page 46703]]

mosaic of pine rockland, so the use of prescribed fire in many places 
has become complicated because of potential danger to structures and 
smoke generated from the burns. Nonprofit organizations such as IRC 
have similar difficulties in conducting prescribed burns due to 
difficulties with permitting and obtaining the necessary permissions as 
well as hazard insurance limitations (Gann 2013, pers. comm.). Few 
private landowners have the means and/or desire to implement prescribed 
fire on their property, and doing so in a fragmented urban environment 
is logistically difficult and may be costly. One of the few privately 
owned pine rocklands that is successfully managed with prescribed 
burning is Pine Ridge Sanctuary, located in a more agricultural (less 
urban) matrix of Miami-Dade, which was last burned in November 2010 
(Glancy 2013, pers. comm.) and retains populations of both Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum. Similarly, extant populations of Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana within the privately owned Charles Deering Estate and County-
owned Crandon Park are managed with fire.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce the Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range
    Miami-Dade County Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Covenant 
Program: In 1979, Miami-Dade County enacted the Environmentally 
Endangered Lands (EEL) Covenant Program, which reduces taxes for 
private landowners of natural forest communities (NFCs), such as pine 
rocklands and tropical hardwood hammocks, who agree not to develop 
their property and manage it for a period of 10 years, with the option 
to renew for additional 10-year periods (Service 1999, p. 3-177). 
Although these temporary conservation easements provide valuable 
protection for their duration, they are not considered under Factor D, 
below, because they are voluntary agreements and not regulatory in 
nature. Miami-Dade County currently has approximately 59 pine rockland 
properties enrolled in this program, preserving 69.4 ha (172 ac) of 
pine rockland habitat (Johnson 2012, pers. comm.). The program also has 
approximately 21 rockland hammocks properties enrolled in this program, 
preserving 20.64 ha (51 ac) of rockland hammock habitat (Joyner 2013b, 
pers. comm.). The vast majority of these properties are small, and many 
are in need of habitat management such as prescribed fire and removal 
of nonnative, invasive plants. Thus, while EEL covenant lands have the 
potential to provide valuable habitat for these plants and reduce 
threats in the near term, the actual effect of these conservation lands 
is largely determined by whether individual land owners follow 
prescribed EEL management plans and NFC regulations (see ``Local'' 
under the Factor D discussion, below).
    Fee Title Properties: In 1990, Miami-Dade County voters approved a 
2-year property tax to fund the acquisition, protection, and 
maintenance of natural areas by the EEL Program. The EEL Program 
purchases and manages natural lands for preservation. Land uses deemed 
incompatible with the protection of the natural resources are 
prohibited by current regulations; however, the County Commission 
ultimately controls what may happen with any County property, and land 
use changes may occur over time (Gil 2013, pers. comm.). To date, the 
Miami-Dade County EEL Program has acquired a total of approximately 313 
ha (775 ac) of pine rockland and 95 ha (236 ac) of rockland hammocks 
(Guerra 2015, pers. comm.; Gil 2013, pers. comm.). The EEL Program also 
manages approximately 314 ha (777 ac) of pine rocklands and 639 ha 
(1,578 ac) of rockland hammocks owned by the Miami-Dade County Parks, 
Recreation and Open Spaces Department, including some of the largest 
remaining areas of pine rockland habitat on the Miami Rock Ridge 
outside of ENP (e.g., Larry and Penny Thompson Park, Zoo Miami 
pinelands, and Navy Wells Pineland Preserve), and some of the largest 
remaining areas of rockland hammocks (e.g., Matheson Hammock Park, 
Castellow Hammock Park, and Deering Estate Park and Preserves).
    Conservation efforts in Miami's EEL Preserves have been underway 
for many years. In Miami-Dade County, conservation lands are and have 
been monitored by FTBG and IRC, in coordination with the EEL Program, 
to assess habitat status and determine any changes that may pose a 
threat to or alter the abundance of these species. Impacts to habitat 
via nonnative species and natural stochastic events are monitored and 
actively managed in areas where the taxon is known to occur. These 
programs are long-term and ongoing in Miami-Dade County; however, 
programs are limited by the availability of annual funding. In 
particular, fire management remains inadequate at many sites.
    Since 2005, the Service has funded IRC to facilitate restoration 
and management of privately owned pine rockland habitats in Miami-Dade 
County. These programs included prescribed burns, nonnative plant 
control, light debris removal, hardwood management, reintroduction of 
pines where needed, and development of management plans. One of these 
programs, called the Pine Rockland Initiative, includes 10-year 
cooperative agreements between participating landowners and the 
Service/IRC to ensure restored areas will be managed appropriately 
during that time. Although most of these objectives have been achieved, 
IRC has not been able to conduct the desired prescribed burns, due to 
logistical difficulties as discussed above (see ``Fire Management,'' 
above).
    Connect To Protect Program: FTBG, with the support of various 
Federal, State, local, and nonprofit organizations, has established the 
``Connect To Protect Network.'' The objective of this program is to 
encourage widespread participation of citizens to create corridors of 
healthy pine rocklands by planting stepping stone gardens and rights-
of-way with native pine rockland species, and restoring isolated pine 
rockland fragments. By doing this, FTBG hopes to increase the 
probability that pollination and seed dispersal vectors can find and 
transport seeds and pollen across developed areas that separate pine 
rockland fragments to improve gene flow between fragmented plant 
populations and increase the likelihood that these plants will persist 
over the long term. Although these projects may serve as valuable 
components toward the conservation of pine rockland species and 
habitat, they are dependent on continual funding, as well as 
participation from private landowners, both of which may vary through 
time.
    National Park Service Lands: The NPS General Management Plans (GMP) 
for ENP (NPS 2015) and BCNP (BCNP 2008) serve to protect, restore, and 
maintain natural and cultural resources at the ecosystem level. 
Although these GMPs are not regulatory, and their implementation is not 
mandatory, the Plans include conservation measures for Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, or Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. The 
GMPs for ENP and BCNP are both currently being implemented, 
specifically; prescribed fire is now being actively administered on a 
cyclic basis at both sites. In ENP, restoration continues throughout 
the Hole-in-the-Donut region of Long Pine Key, which is resulting in 
resurgence of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, and Chamaesyce

[[Page 46704]]

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum within the Park.
Summary of Factor A
    Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, and associated 
pressures from increased human population are major threats to the four 
plants; these threats are expected to increase as remaining pine 
rocklands and other habitats are lost to development, placing these 
plants at greater risk. Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana may be impacted when pine rocklands are 
converted to other uses or when lack of fire causes the conversion to 
hardwood hammocks or other unsuitable habitats. On public lands, 
including NPS lands and Miami-Dade County-owned lands, implementation 
of prescribed fire has not been sufficient because of legal constraints 
(permitting requirements) and inadequate funding. Any populations of 
these four plants found on private property could be destroyed due to 
development. Although efforts are being made to conserve natural areas 
and apply prescribed fire, most pine rocklands remain in poor fire 
condition, and the long-term effects of large-scale and wide-ranging 
habitat modification, destruction, and curtailment will last into the 
future, while ongoing habitat loss due to population growth, 
development, and agricultural conversion continues to pose a threat to 
these species outside of conservation lands. Therefore, based on the 
best information available, we have determined that the threats to 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana from habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment are 
occurring throughout the entire range of these species and are expected 
to continue into the future.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The best available data do not indicate that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a 
threat to Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, or Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana. Threats to these plants related to other 
aspects of recreation and similar human activities (i.e., not related 
to overutilization) are discussed under Factor E, below.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    Scale insects (Coccoidea) and Cassytha filiformis (love vine, a 
parasitic plant) infestations have been noted as parasites for Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana (Maschinski et al. 2015, p. 39) and may 
also influence populations of other listed pine rockland plant species. 
However, the best available data do not indicate that disease or 
predation is a threat to Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, or Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Under this factor, we examine whether threats to these plants 
discussed under the other factors are continuing due to an inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any, 
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision 
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species . . . '' In 
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to 
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal 
laws, regulations, and other such binding legal mechanisms that may 
ameliorate or exacerbate any of the threats we describe in threat 
analyses under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance 
conservation of the species.
    Having evaluated the impact of the threats as mitigated by any such 
conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to which 
existing regulatory mechanisms ameliorate or exacerbate the specific 
threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may 
reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified threats. In 
this section, we review existing Federal, State, and local regulatory 
mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or remove 
threats to Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum or Dalea carthagenensis 
var. floridana.
Federal
    Lands managed by the National Park Service are subject to the NPS 
Organic Act of 1916, which provides that the ``fundamental purpose'' of 
those lands ``is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic 
objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of 
the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired 
for the enjoyment of future generations'' (16 U.S.C. 1). Most units of 
the National Park System also have their own specific enabling 
legislation, but the 1970 General Authorities Act makes it clear that 
all units are united into a single National Park System. Furthermore, 
no activities shall be allowed ``in derogation of the values and 
purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as 
may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by 
Congress'' (16 U.S.C. 1a-1).
    Populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana within ENP and BCNP are protected by NPS 
regulations at 36 CFR 2.1, which prohibit visitors from harming or 
removing plants, listed or otherwise, from ENP or BCNP. However, the 
regulations do not address actions taken by NPS that cause mortality of 
individuals, or habitat loss or modification to development or sea 
level rise. NPS regulations do not require the application of 
prescribed fire or voluntary recovery actions for listed species.
    Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana have no Federal regulatory protection in their known occupied 
and suitable habitat outside of ENP or BCNP. These species may occur 
(we do not have recent surveys) on Federal lands within the Richmond 
Pine Rocklands, including lands owned by the U.S. Coast Guard and the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA; small portion of 
Martinez Pineland). There are no Federal protections for these four 
species on these properties. Outside of NPS lands, these plants occur 
primarily on State- or County-owned and private land (see Tables 1 
through 4, above), and development of these areas will likely require 
no Federal permit or other authorization, e.g. these projects are 
generally not analyzed under the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
State
    Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana are listed on the State of Florida's Regulated Plant Index 
(Index) as endangered under chapter 5B-40, Florida Administrative Code. 
This listing provides habitat protection

[[Page 46705]]

through the State's Development of Regional Impact process, which 
discloses impacts from projects and provides limited regulatory 
protection for State-listed plants on private lands.
    Florida Statutes 581.185 sections (3)(a) and (3)(b) prohibit any 
person from willfully destroying or harvesting any species listed as 
endangered or threatened on the Index or growing such a plant on the 
private land of another, or on any public land, without first obtaining 
the written permission of the landowner and a permit from the Florida 
Department of Plant Industry. The statute further provides that any 
person willfully destroying or harvesting; transporting, carrying, or 
conveying on any public road or highway; or selling or offering for 
sale any plant listed in the Index as endangered must have a permit 
from the State at all times when engaged in any such activities. 
Further, Florida Statutes 581.185 section (10) provides for 
consultation similar to section 7 of the Act for listed species, by 
requiring the Department of Transportation to notify the FDACS and the 
Endangered Plant Advisory Council of planned highway construction at 
the time bids are first advertised, to facilitate evaluation of the 
project for listed plant populations, and to provide ``for the 
appropriate disposal of such plants'' (i.e., transplanting).
    However, this statute provides no substantive protection of habitat 
at this time. Florida Statutes 581.185 section (8) waives State 
regulation for certain classes of activities for all species on the 
Index, including the clearing or removal of regulated plants for 
agricultural, forestry, mining, construction (residential, commercial, 
or infrastructure), and fire-control activities by a private landowner 
or his or her agent.
Local
    In 1984, section 24-49 of the Code of Miami-Dade County established 
regulation of County-designated NFCs, which include both pine rocklands 
and tropical hardwood hammocks. These regulations were placed on 
specific properties throughout the county by an act of the Board of 
County Commissioners in an effort to protect environmentally sensitive 
forest lands. The Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and 
Economic Resources (RER) has regulatory authority over NFCs and is 
charged with enforcing regulations that provide partial protection on 
the Miami Rock Ridge. Miami-Dade Code typically allows up to 20 percent 
of a pine rockland designated as NFC to be developed, and requires that 
the remaining 80 percent be placed under a perpetual covenant. In 
certain circumstances, where the landowner can demonstrate that 
limiting development to 20 percent does not allow for ``reasonable 
use'' of the property, additional development may be approved. NFC 
landowners are also required to obtain an NFC permit for any work, 
including removal of nonnatives within the boundaries of the NFC on 
their property. The NFC program is responsible for ensuring that NFC 
permits are issued in accordance with the limitations and requirements 
of the code and that appropriate NFC preserves are established and 
maintained in conjunction with the issuance of an NFC permit. The NFC 
program currently regulates approximately 600 pine rockland or pine 
rockland/hammock properties, comprising approximately 1,200 ha (3,000 
ac) of habitat (Joyner 2013a, pers. comm.).
    Although the NFC program is designed to protect rare and important 
upland (non-wetlands) habitats in south Florida, it has limitations for 
protection of the four plants discussed in this rule. For example, in 
certain circumstances where landowners can demonstrate that limiting 
development to 20 percent does not allow for ``reasonable use'' of the 
property, additional development may be approved. Furthermore, Miami-
Dade County Code provides for up to 100 percent of the NFC to be 
developed on a parcel in limited circumstances for parcels less than 
2.02 ha (5 ac) in size and only requires coordination with the 
landowner if they plan to develop property or perform work within the 
NFC designated area. As such, the majority of the existing private, 
forested NFC parcels is isolated fragments, without management 
obligations or preserve designation, as development has not been 
proposed at a level that would trigger the NFC regulatory requirements. 
Often, nonnative vegetation over time begins to dominate and degrade 
the undeveloped and unmanaged NFC landscape until it no longer meets 
the legal threshold of an NFC, which requires the land to be dominated 
by native vegetation. When development of such degraded NFCs is 
proposed, Miami-Dade County Code requires delisting of the degraded 
areas as part of the development process. Property previously 
designated as NFC is removed from the list even before development is 
initiated because of the abundance of nonnative species, making it no 
longer considered to be jurisdictional or subject to the NFC protection 
requirements of Miami-Dade County Code (Grossenbacher 2013, pers. 
comm.).
Summary of Factor D
    Currently, Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana are found on Federal, State and County 
lands. NPS regulations provide protection at ENP and BCNP. While these 
regulations do not mandate active conservation measures, these two 
sites continue to support the largest and best managed populations. 
State regulations provide protection against trade, but allow private 
landowners or their agents to clear or remove species on the Florida 
Regulated Plant Index. State Park regulations provide protection for 
plants within Florida State Parks. The NFC program in Miami is designed 
to protect rare and important upland (non-wetlands) habitats in south 
Florida; however, this regulatory strategy has several limitations (as 
described above) that reduce its ability to protect the four plants and 
their habitats.
    Although many populations of the four plants are afforded some 
level of protection because they are on public conservation lands, 
especially Federal lands, existing regulatory mechanisms vary in 
strength and scope, and do not provide substantive protection of 
habitat at this time. They have not led to a sufficient reduction of 
threats posed to these plants by a wide array of sources (see 
discussions under Factors A and E in this rule).

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

    Other natural or manmade factors affect Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana to varying degrees. 
Specific threats to these plants included in this factor consist of the 
spread of nonnative invasive plants, potentially incompatible 
management practices (such as mowing), direct impacts to plants from 
recreation and other human activities, small population size and 
isolation, climate change, and the related risks from environmental 
stochasticity (extreme weather) on small populations. Each of these 
threats and its specific effect on these species are discussed in 
detail below.
Nonnative Plant Species
    Nonnative, invasive plants compete with native plants for space, 
light, water, and nutrients, and make habitat

[[Page 46706]]

conditions unsuitable for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana, which prefer open conditions. The 
control of nonnative plants is one of the most important conservation 
actions for the four plants and a critical part of habitat maintenance 
(Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 13, 71-72). However, nonnative species 
control efforts require that personnel be highly familiar with pine 
rocklands and associated habitats in order to avoid impacts (e.g., 
improper herbicide use, species misidentification) to native species.
    Nonnative plants have significantly affected pine rocklands and 
negatively impact all occurrences of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana to some degree 
(Bradley 2006, pp. 25-26; Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 18-19; Bradley and 
Saha 2009, p. 25; Bradley and van der Heiden 2013, pp. 12-16). As a 
result of human activities, at least 277 taxa of nonnative plants have 
invaded pine rocklands throughout south Florida (Service 1999, p. 3-
175). Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper), Neyraudia 
neyraudiana (Burma reed), and Lygodium microphyllum (Old World climbing 
fern) affect these species (Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 13, 72). 
Brazilian pepper, a nonnative tree, is the most widespread and one of 
the most invasive species. It forms dense thickets of tangled, woody 
stems that completely shade out and displace native vegetation (Loflin 
1991, p. 19; Langeland and Craddock Burks 1998, p. 54).
    Nonnative plants in pine rocklands can affect the characteristics 
of a fire when it occurs. Historically, pine rocklands had an open, low 
understory where natural fires remained patchy with low temperature 
intensity. Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana thrive under this fire regime. However, 
dense infestations of Neyraudia neyraudiana and Schinus 
terebinthifolius cause higher fire temperatures and longer burning 
periods.
    Nonnative species occur throughout the ranges of the four plants. 
In ENP and BCNP, invasives tend to be fewer due to the insularity of 
these sites and the NPS's control programs. Nevertheless, most areas 
require annual treatments to remove incipient invasions. Management of 
nonnative, invasive plants in pine rocklands in Miami-Dade County is 
further complicated because the vast majority of pine rocklands are 
small, fragmented areas bordered by urban development. Areas near 
managed pine rockland that contain nonnative species can act as a seed 
source of nonnatives, allowing them to continue to invade the 
surrounding pine rockland (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 13).
    Nonnative plant species are also a concern on private lands, where 
often these species are not controlled due to associated costs, lack of 
interest, or lack of knowledge of detrimental impacts to the ecosystem. 
Undiscovered populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana on private lands 
could certainly be at risk. Overall, active management is necessary to 
control for nonnative species and to protect unique and rare habitats 
where these plants occur (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 273).
Mowing
    While no studies have investigated the effect of mowing on 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, or Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana, research has been conducted on the federally endangered 
Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's small-flowered flax), which also 
occurs in pine rocklands. The study found significantly higher 
densities of plants at the mown sites where competition with other 
plants is decreased (Maschinski et al. 2007, p. 56). However, plants 
growing on mown sites were shorter, which may affect fruiting 
magnitude. While mowing did not usually kill adult plants, it could 
delay reproduction if it occurred prior to plants reaching reproductive 
status (Maschinski et al. 2007, pp. 56-57). If such mowing occurs 
repeatedly, reproduction of those plants would be entirely eliminated. 
Maschinski et al. (2008, p. 28) recommended adjusting the timing of 
mowing to occur at least 3 weeks after flowering is observed to allow a 
higher probability of adults setting fruit prior to the mowing event. 
With flexibility and proper instructions to land managers and ground 
crews, mowing practices could be implemented in such a way as to 
scatter seeds and reduce competition with little effect on population 
reproductive output for the year (Maschinski et al. 2008, p. 28). The 
exact impacts of mowing also depend on the timing of rainfall prior to 
and following mowing, and the numbers of plants in the population that 
have reached a reproductive state.
Recreation and Other Human Activities
    Recreational use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) is a threat to 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, and 
Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana occurrences within BCNP (K. Bradley 
et al. 2013, p. 3). Operators frequently veer off established trails, 
and plants can be harmed or destroyed (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 43). 
BCNP updated its Off Road Vehicle Management Plan in 2012, in response 
to extreme resource damage caused by ORVs. BCNP manages ORV access 
using a permit system, regulations, and designated trails. However, 
there are over 1,000 miles of ORV trails in BCNP, and only one 
enforcement officer (Pernas 2016, pers. comm.), making enforcement of 
designated ORV trails a challenge. Current aerial imagery from the 
Lostman's Pine area of BCNP, where Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana occur, shows a criss-cross pattern of multiple ORV trails 
through the area. The Service is working with BCNP to determine the 
extent to which ORVs are affecting all three species at this site, 
particularly in regards to Digitaria pauciflora, since it is one of 
only two sites where the species is known to exist. Damage from ORV use 
has also been documented for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana within 
the Charles Deering Estate (J. Possley 2008 and 2009, pers. comm.).
    Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana at the RHMP is also impacted by 
illegal mountain biking (Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 43-45). In the 
past, this pineland fragment was heavily used by mountain bikers. In 
response, Miami-Dade County has erected fencing to protect this site, 
which appears to have reduced this threat (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 
43).
Effects of Small Population Size and Isolation
    Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree of 
isolation are extremely susceptible to extinction from both random and 
nonrandom catastrophic natural or human-caused events. Species that are 
restricted to geographically limited areas are inherently more 
vulnerable to extinction than widespread species because of the 
increased risk of genetic bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations, 
effects of climate change, and localized catastrophes such as 
hurricanes and disease outbreaks (Mangel and Tier

[[Page 46707]]

1994, p. 607; Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757). These problems are further 
magnified when populations are few and restricted to a very small 
geographic area, and when the number of individuals is very small. 
Populations with these characteristics face an increased likelihood of 
stochastic extinction due to changes in demography, the environment, 
genetics, or other factors (Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 24-34).
    Small, isolated populations, such as those in fragmented habitat, 
often exhibit reduced levels of genetic variability, although the 
ultimate effect of these changes is dependent on a plant's specific 
life history, reproductive system, and interaction with pollinators and 
dispersal vectors (which may themselves be affected by fragmentation) 
(Young et al. 1996, p. 413). While research results clearly indicate 
that isolation/fragmentation has population genetic consequences for 
plants, consequences are varied and for some species there may be a 
``fragmentation threshold'' below which genetic variation is not lost 
(Young et al. 1996, p. 416). No such studies have been conducted for 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana, so whether these plants exhibit such a threshold is not 
known. Reduced genetic variability generally diminishes a species' 
capacity to adapt and respond to environmental changes, thereby 
decreasing the probability of long-term persistence (e.g., Barrett and 
Kohn 1991, p. 4; Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 361). Very small plant 
populations may experience reduced reproductive vigor due to 
ineffective pollination or inbreeding depression. Isolated individuals 
have difficulty achieving natural pollen exchange, which limits the 
production of viable seed. The problems associated with small 
population size and vulnerability to random demographic fluctuations or 
natural catastrophes are further magnified by synergistic (interaction 
of two or more components) effects with other threats, such as those 
discussed above (Factors A and C). Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, list 
the population sizes and the geographic ranges for S. reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and D. 
carthagenensis var. floridana. For example, Table 2 lists Digitaria 
pauciflora as having two extant populations (ENP and BCNP), one 
estimated at 100,000-200,000 plants (Maschinski and Lange 2015, p.18) 
and the other with greater than 10,000 plants (K. Bradley 2007, pers. 
comm.). The Service does not consider these as small populations; 
however, a large wildfire or severe flooding could be catastrophic. As 
shown in 2016, D. pauciflora was impacted by fire in ENP and flooding 
in ENP and BCNP, proving that the small geographic extent of the 
existing populations is not sufficient to eliminate the risk posed by 
large-scale disturbances.
Effects of Climate Change
    Climatic changes, including sea level rise, are major threats to 
the flora of south Florida, including Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. Our analyses under 
the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in 
climate. With regard to our analysis for S. reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and D. 
carthagenensis var. floridana, downscaled projections suggest that sea 
level rise is the largest climate-driven challenge to low-lying coastal 
areas in the subtropical ecoregion of southern Florida (U.S. Climate 
Change Science Program (USCCSP) 2008, pp. 5-31, 5-32).
    Global sea level has increased by 0.20 to 0.23 m (8 to 9 in) since 
1880, with the rate of increase over the past 20 years doubling 
(Service 2017, p. 5). An average 0.08 m (3 in) increase in overall 
global sea level rise has occurred between 1992 and 2015 (National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2015, p. 
2). This is equivalent to the Florida coastline subsiding at a rate of 
0.04 inches a year (Service 2017, p. 6). The long-term trend in sea 
level rise at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) 
Key West Station, Florida shows a 0.0024 m (0.09 in) increase per year 
from 1913 to 2015 of the mean high water line. The NOAA Vaca Key 
Station (City of Marathon) shows a 0.0035 m (0.14 in) per year sea 
level rise between 1971 (start of data collection) to 2015 (NOAA 
2017a). Mean high water line is defined as, ``The line on a chart or 
map which represents the intersection of the land with the water 
surface at the elevation of mean high water'' (NOAA National Ocean 
Service [NOS]) 2017).
    While the sea level rise rate for Florida has been equivalent to 
that experienced globally, recent analysis is now indicating an 
accelerated rate for the eastern United States above that of the global 
rate (NOAA 2017b, p. 25; Carter et al. 2014, pp. 401-403; Park and 
Sweet 2015, entire). The global trend is currently on the higher-end 
trajectory of the scenarios, projecting a sea level rise of 2.5 to 3.0 
m by 2100. NOAA (2017b, p. 21) is recommending the use of the higher 
end estimates for future projections. The accelerated sea level rise in 
south Florida is being attributed to shifts in the Florida Current due 
to: (a) Added ocean mass brought on by the melting Antarctic and 
Greenland ice packs, and (b) thermal expansion from the warming ocean 
(Park and Sweet 2015, entire article; Rahmstorf et al. 2015, entire 
article; NOAA 2017b, p. 14; Deconto and Pollard, 2016, p. 596). For 
this reason, Walsh et al. (2014, pp. 32-35) recommended adding 
approximately 15 percent to the earlier IPCC (2013, entire) global mean 
sea level rise projections when using projections for southern Florida 
if the projections used do not yet model the accelerated rate 
(Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact [Compact] 2015, p. 
35; Park and Sweet, 2015, entire article).
    Other processes expected to be affected by projected warming 
include temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and 
distribution), and storms (frequency and intensity) (discussed more 
specifically under ``Environmental Stochasticity,'' below). The 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) modeled several scenarios 
combining various levels of sea level rise, temperature change, and 
precipitation differences with human population growth, policy 
assumptions, and conservation funding changes (see ``Alternative Future 
Landscape Models,'' below). All of the scenarios, from small climate 
change shifts to major changes, indicate significant effects on coastal 
Miami-Dade County.
    In the United States, the average temperatures have increased by 
0.77 to 1.1 [deg]C (1.3 to 1.9 [deg]F) since record keeping began in 
1895 (Service 2017, p. 2). The decade from 2000 to 2009 is documented 
as the warmest since record keeping began in 1895 (Service 2017, p. 2). 
The average temperatures in south Florida have increased 0.83 [deg]C 
(1.5 [deg]F) or more since 1991 (Service 2017, p. 2). Because of the 
current condition of human-induced emissions (that is, the pattern of 
continued release of greenhouse gas (GHG) added to those already 
occurring in the atmosphere), increases in surface air temperature 
continue to rise. Even if there was an immediate and aggressive 
reduction to all GHG emissions caused by humans, there would still be 
expected continued increases in surface air temperature (IPCC 2013; pp. 
19-20).
    Precipitation patterns are also changing. The National Climate

[[Page 46708]]

Assessment (NCA) reports that average precipitation has increased by 5 
to 10 percent since 1900 in south Florida. Shifts in seasonal rainfall 
events as well as increases in average precipitation are currently 
being documented (Service 2017, pp. 405). The south Florida dry season 
(November through April) has become wetter, and the rainy season (May 
through October) has become drier. Current projections show this trend 
to continue.
    Heavy downpours are currently increasing and have especially 
increased over the last 30 to 50 years in Florida. There is currently a 
27 percent increase in the frequency and intensity of heavy downpours 
since the 1970s (Service 2017, p. 4). Increased inland flooding is 
predicted during heavy rain events in low-lying areas. With worsening 
storms, storm surges along coastlines become stronger and push inland 
further. Inundation of soils from storm surges can cause saltwater 
intrusion. More powerful storm surges exacerbate effects of the 
increased sea level along shorelines. Increased incidences of inland 
flooding and of low-lying areas are being documented regionally and 
locally (Staletovich 2016; Sheridan 2015).
    Decades prior to inundation, pine rocklands are likely to undergo 
vegetation shifts related to climate change, triggered by changes to 
hydrology (wetter), salinity (higher), and increasing vulnerability to 
storm surge (pulse events causing massive erosion and salinization of 
soils) (Saha et al. 2011, pp. 169-184). Hydrology has a strong 
influence on plant distribution in these and other coastal areas (IPCC 
2008, p. 57). Such communities typically grade from saltwater to 
brackish to freshwater species. From the 1930s to 1950s, increased 
salinity of coastal waters contributed to the decline of cabbage palm 
forests in southwest Florida (Williams et al. 1999, pp. 2056-2059), 
expansion of mangroves into adjacent marshes in the Everglades (Ross et 
al. 2000, pp. 101, 111), and loss of pine rockland in the Keys (Ross et 
al. 1994, pp. 144, 151-155). In one Florida Keys pine rockland with an 
average elevation of 0.89 m (2.9 ft), Ross et al. (1994, pp. 149-152) 
observed an approximately 65 percent reduction in an area occupied by 
South Florida slash pine over a 70-year period, with pine mortality and 
subsequent increased proportions of halophytic (salt-loving) plants 
occurring earlier at the lower elevations. During this same time span, 
local sea level had risen by 15 cm (6.0 in), and Ross et al. (1994, p. 
152) found evidence of groundwater and soil water salinization. 
Extrapolating this situation to pine rocklands on the mainland is not 
straightforward, but suggests that similar changes to species 
composition could arise if current projections of sea level rise occur 
and freshwater inputs are not sufficient to prevent salinization. 
Furthermore, Ross et al. (2009, pp. 471-478) suggested that 
interactions between sea level rise and pulse disturbances (e.g., storm 
surges) can cause vegetation to change sooner than projected based on 
sea level rise alone. Alexander (1953, pp. 133-138) attributed the 
demise of pinelands on northern Key Largo to salinization of the 
groundwater in response to sea level rise. Patterns of human 
development will also likely be significant factors influencing whether 
natural communities can move and persist (IPCC 2008, p. 57; USCCSP 
2008, p. 7-6).
    The Science and Technology Committee of the Miami-Dade County 
Climate Change Task Force (Wanless et al. 2008, p. 1) recognized that 
significant sea level rise is a very real threat to the near future for 
Miami-Dade County. In a January 2008 statement, the committee warned 
that sea level is expected to rise at least 0.9 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) 
within this century (Wanless et al. 2008, p. 3). With a 0.9 to 1.2 m (3 
to 4 ft) rise in sea level (above baseline) in Miami-Dade County, 
spring high tides would be at about 6 to 7 ft; freshwater resources 
would be gone; the Everglades would be inundated on the west side of 
Miami-Dade County; the barrier islands would be largely inundated; 
storm surges would be devastating; and landfill sites would be exposed 
to erosion, contaminating marine and coastal environments. Freshwater 
and coastal mangrove wetlands will not keep up with or offset sea level 
rise of 2 ft per century or greater. With a 5-ft rise (spring tides at 
nearly +8 ft), the land area of Miami-Dade County will be extremely 
diminished (Wanless et al. 2008, pp. 3-4).
    Drier conditions and increased variability in precipitation 
associated with climate change are expected to hamper successful 
regeneration of forests and cause shifts in vegetation types through 
time (Wear and Greis 2012, p. 39). Although it has not been well 
studied, existing pine rocklands have probably been affected by 
reductions in the mean water table. Climate changes are also forecasted 
to extend fire seasons and the frequency of large fire events 
throughout the Coastal Plain (Wear and Greis 2012, p. 43). These 
factors will likely cause an increase in wildfires and exacerbate 
complications related to prescribed burning (i.e., less predictability 
related to rainfall, fuel moisture, and winds) or other management 
needed to restore and maintain habitat for the four plants. While 
restoring fire to pine rocklands is essential to the long-term 
viability of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana populations, increases in the scale, 
frequency, or severity of wildfires could have negative effects on 
these plants considering their general vulnerability due to small 
population size, restricted range, few occurrences, and relative 
isolation. Big, hot wildfires can destroy essential habitat features of 
pine rockland habitat. In addition, hot burns with long residence times 
(which are more likely under wildfire conditions) can also sterilize 
the soil seed bank and cause a demographic crash in plant populations.
Alternative Future Landscape Models
    To accommodate the large uncertainty in sea level rise projections, 
researchers must estimate effects from a range of scenarios. Various 
model scenarios developed at MIT and GeoAdaptive Inc. have projected 
possible trajectories of future transformation of the south Florida 
landscape by 2060 based upon four main drivers: Climate change, shifts 
in planning approaches and regulations, human population change, and 
variations in financial resources for conservation. The scenarios do 
not account for temperature, precipitation, or species' habitat shifts 
due to climate change, and no storm surge effects are considered. The 
current MIT scenarios range from 0.09 to 1.0 m (0.3 to 3.3 ft) of sea 
level rise by 2060 (Vargas-Moreno and Flaxman 2010, pp. 1-6).
    Based on the most recent estimates of anticipated sea level rise, 
the upward trend in recent projections toward the higher range of 
earlier sea level rise estimates (discussed above), and the data 
available to us at this time, we evaluated potential effects of sea 
level rise using the current ``high'' range MIT scenario as well as 
comparing elevations of remaining pine rockland fragments and extant 
and historical occurrences of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. The ``high'' range 
(or ``worst case'') MIT scenario assumes high sea level rise (1 m (3.3 
ft) by 2060), low financial resources, a `business as usual' approach 
to planning, and a doubling of human population.
    The rate of sea level rise will increase as time passes. This is 
due to atmospheric and ocean warming and the

[[Page 46709]]

thermal expansion properties of water. In sea level rise models, the 
rate of sea level rise is projected to increase dramatically around 
mid-century.
    Most populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
Digitaria pauciflora, and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum occur at 
elevations less than 2 m (6.6 ft) above sea level, making these species 
highly susceptible to increased storm surges and related impacts 
associated with sea level rise. Areas of the Miami Rock Ridge in Miami-
Dade County (located to the east of ENP and BCNP) are higher elevation 
(maximum of 7 m (22 ft) above sea level) than those in BCNP (FNAI 2010, 
p. 62). However, plant communities along south Florida's low-lying 
coasts are organized along a mild gradient in elevation, transitioning 
from mangroves at sea level to salinity-intolerant interior habitats, 
including pine rocklands and hardwood hammocks within an elevation 
change of 2 m (6.5 ft) above sea level. As a result, a rise of 1 m (3.3 
ft) in sea level is expected to render coastal systems susceptible to 
increased erosion and cause these areas to transition from upland 
forest habitats to saline wetland habitats. Prior to the onset of 
sustained inundation, there will be irreversible changes in vegetation 
composition within these habitats. Shifts in habitat toward hydric and 
saline ecosystems may occur decades in advance of full inundation, 
rendering the habitat unsuitable for salt-intolerant species, including 
S. reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Saha et al. 2011, 
pp. 169-184). As interior habitats become more saline, there will be a 
reduction in freshwater inflows to the estuarine portions of the 
Everglades and BCNP, accelerating losses in salinity-intolerant coastal 
plant communities (Saha et al. 2011, pp. 169-184); such as S. 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, or D. carthagenensis var. floridana.
    Actual impacts may be greater or less than anticipated based upon 
the high variability of factors involved (e.g., sea level rise, human 
population growth) and assumptions made, but based on the current 
``high'' range MIT scenario, pine rocklands, marl prairies, and 
associated habitats along the coast in central and southern Miami-Dade 
County would become inundated. The ``new'' sea level would occur at the 
southern end of the Miami Rock Ridge (the eastern edge of the 
Everglades). However, in decades prior to the fully anticipated sea 
level rise, changes in the water table and increased soil salinity from 
partial inundation and storm surge will result in vegetation shifts 
within BCNP, ENP, and conservation lands on the southern Miami Rock 
Ridge. Inundation will result in pine rocklands gaining increased marl 
prairie characteristics. Marl prairies, in turn, will transition to 
sawgrass or more hydric conditions, due to increased inundation. As a 
result, species such as Digitaria pauciflora and Sideroxylon reclinatum 
ssp. austrofloridense, which are most abundant within the ecotone 
between pine rocklands and marl prairies, will gradually decline as 
these habitat types merge and eventually disappear. Under this 
scenario, by 2060, all extant populations of Digitaria pauciflora, as 
well as the largest populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, would likely 
be lost or significantly impacted by shifts in vegetation communities. 
Populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana would 
likely remain only at the highest elevations along the Miami Rock 
Ridge. In addition, many existing pine rockland fragments are projected 
to be developed for housing as the human population grows and adjusts 
to changing sea levels under this scenario.
    Further direct losses to extant populations of all four plants are 
expected due to habitat loss and modification from sea level rise 
through 2100. We analyzed existing sites that support populations of 
the four plants using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise and Coastal Impacts viewer. Below 
we discuss general implications of sea level rise within the range of 
projections discussed above on the current distribution of these 
species. The NOAA tool uses 1-foot increments. Our analysis is based on 
0.91 m (3 ft) and 1.8 m (6 ft) of sea level rise.
    Based on a higher sea level rise of 1.8 m (6 ft), as projected by 
NOAA, much larger portions of urban Miami-Dade County, including both 
extant populations of Digitaria pauciflora in ENP and BCNP, as well as 
conservation areas, such as Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, will be 
inundated by 2100. As a result, the species would be extinct. Several 
extant occurrences of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana would also be lost. The western part of urban Miami-Dade 
County would also be inundated (barring creation of sea walls or other 
barriers), creating a virtual island of the Miami Rock Ridge.
    Following a 1.8-m (6 ft) rise in sea level, approximately 75 
percent of presently extant pine rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge 
would still remain above sea level. However, an unknown percentage of 
remaining pine rockland fragments would be negatively impacted by water 
table and soil salinization, which would be further exacerbated due to 
isolation from mainland fresh water flows.
    Projections of sea level rise above 1.8 m (6 ft) indicate that very 
little pine rockland would remain, with the vast majority either being 
inundated or experiencing vegetation shifts, resulting in the 
extirpation of all known populations of Digitaria pauciflora, 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana.
Environmental Stochasticity
    Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree of 
isolation and narrow geographic distribution, such as Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 
deltoidea pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, are 
extremely susceptible to extinction from both random and nonrandom 
catastrophic natural or human-caused events. Small populations of 
species, without positive growth rates, are considered to have a high 
extinction risk from site-specific demographic and environmental 
stochasticity (Lande 1993, pp. 911-927).
    The climate of southern Florida is driven by a combination of 
local, regional, and global events, regimes, and oscillations. There 
are three main ``seasons'': (1) The wet season, which is hot, rainy, 
and humid from June through October; (2) the official hurricane season 
that extends one month beyond the wet season (June 1 through November 
30), with peak season being August and September; and (3) the dry 
season, which is drier and cooler, from November through May. In the 
dry season, periodic surges of cool and dry continental air masses 
influence the weather with short-duration rain events followed by long 
periods of dry weather.
    Florida is considered the most vulnerable State in the United 
States to hurricanes and tropical storms (Stefanova et al. 2017, pp. 1-
4) Based on data gathered from 1856 to 2008, Florida had the highest 
climatological probabilities of coastal States being impacted by a 
hurricane or major hurricane in all years over the 152-year

[[Page 46710]]

timespan, with a 51 percent probability of a hurricane (Category 1 or 
2) and a 21 percent probability of a major hurricane (Category 3 or 
higher) (Klotzbach and Gray 2009, p. 28). From 1856 to 2015, Florida 
actually experienced 109 hurricanes and 36 major hurricanes. Given the 
low population sizes and restricted ranges of Sideroxylon reclinatum 
ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana within south 
Florida, these species are at substantial risk from hurricanes, storm 
surges, and other extreme weather. Depending on the location and 
intensity of a hurricane or other severe weather event, it is possible 
that the plants could become extirpated or extinct.
    Hurricanes, storm surge, and extreme high tide events are natural 
events that can negatively impact these four plants. Hurricanes and 
tropical storms can modify habitat (e.g., through storm surge) and have 
the potential to destroy entire populations, physically washing them 
away or leaving soil too saline for them to persist. Climate change may 
lead to increased frequency and duration of severe storms (Golladay et 
al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 
1015). Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana experienced these disturbances 
historically, but had the benefit of more abundant and contiguous 
habitat to buffer them from extirpations. With most of the historical 
habitat having been destroyed or modified, the few remaining 
populations of these species could face local extirpations due to 
stochastic events.
    Other processes to be affected by climate change, related to 
environmental stochasticity, include temperatures, rainfall (amount, 
seasonal timing, and distribution), and storms (frequency and 
intensity). Temperatures are projected to increase by 2-5 [deg]C (3.6-9 
[deg]F) for North America by the end of this century (IPCC 2013, pp. 5-
8, 20). These factors will likely cause an increase in wildfires and 
exacerbate complications related to prescribed burning or other 
management needed to restore and maintain habitat for the four plants. 
Based upon modeling, Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies 
are expected to decrease (Knutson et al. 2008, pp. 1-21). By 2100, 
there should be a 10 to 30 percent decrease in hurricane frequency. 
Hurricane frequency is expected to drop due to more wind shear impeding 
initial hurricane development. However, hurricane winds are expected to 
increase by 5 to 10 percent, which will increase storm surge heights. 
This is due to more hurricane energy being available for intense 
hurricanes. In addition to climate change, weather variables are 
extremely influenced by other natural cycles, such as El Ni[ntilde]o 
Southern Oscillation with a frequency of every 4-7 years, solar cycle 
(every 11 years), and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. All of 
these cycles influence changes in Floridian weather. The exact 
magnitude, direction, and distribution of all of these changes at the 
regional level are difficult to project.
Freezing Temperatures
    Occasional freezing temperatures that occur in south Florida pose a 
risk to Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana, causing damage or death to individual 
plants. Under normal circumstances, occasional freezing temperatures 
would not result in a significant impact to populations of these 
plants; however, the small size of some populations means the loss from 
freezing events of even a few individuals can reduce the viability of 
the population.
Hydrology and Everglades Restoration
    Hydrology is a key ecosystem component that affects rare plant 
distributions and their viability (Gann et al. 2006, p. 4). 
Historically, sheet flow from Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough did 
not reach the upland portions of Long Pine Key, but during the wet 
season increased surface water flow in sloughs generated a rise in 
ground water across the region (Gann et al. 2006, p. 4). Water flow 
through Long Pine Key was originally concentrated in marl prairies, 
traversing in a north-south direction; however, construction of the 
main ENP road dissected Long Pine Key in an east-west direction, 
thereby impeding sheet flow across this area (Gann et al. 2006, p. 4). 
Water was either impounded to the north of the main ENP road or 
diverted around the southern portion of Long Pine Key through Taylor 
Slough and Shark River Slough (Gann et al. 2006, p. 4). As artificial 
drainage became more widespread, however, regional groundwater supplies 
declined.
    While projects designed to restore the historical hydrology of the 
Everglades and other natural systems in southern Florida (collectively 
known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)) are 
beneficial to the Everglades ecosystem, some may produce collateral 
impacts to extant pine rockland, marl prairies, and associated habitats 
within the region through inundation or increased hydroperiods. The 
effects of changes in regional hydrology through restoration may have 
impacts on the four plants and their habitats. Sadle (2012, pers. 
comm.) suggested various CERP projects (such as C-111 spreader canal; 
L-31N seepage barrier), specifically the operation of pumps and 
associated detention areas along the ENP boundary, may influence 
(through excessive water discharges) select portions of eastern Long 
Pine Key. Increased and longer-duration hydroperiods within the pine 
rockland and marl prairie habitats where these species occur may lead 
to a reduction in the amount of suitable habitat, a potential reduction 
in the area occupied and a reduction in the number of individuals found 
in ENP and BCNP. Conversely, Maschinski and Lange (2015, pp. 31-33) 
observed an increase in Digitaria pauciflora populations within ENP 
that may have been associated with drier conditions. In an effort to 
establish a baseline assessment of future hydrologic modifications, 
long-term monitoring transects and plots for Sideroxylon reclinatum 
ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, and Chamaesyce deltoidea 
ssp. pinetorum were established in Long Pine Key between 2003 and 2008 
(Gann 2015, p. 169).
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting Continued Existence
    NPS, the Service, Miami-Dade County, and the State of Florida have 
ongoing nonnative plant management programs to reduce threats on public 
lands, as funding and resources allow. In Miami-Dade County, nonnative, 
invasive plant management is very active, with a goal to treat all 
publically owned properties at least once a year and more often in many 
cases. IRC and FTBG conducts research and monitoring in various natural 
areas within Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys for various 
endangered plant species and nonnative, invasive species. For the four 
plants, monitoring detects declines that lead to small population size, 
changes in habitat due to sea level rise, and declines due to 
stochastic events. For nonnatives, monitoring is an integral part of 
efforts to detect and control invasive plant and animal species.
    FTBG has provided 16,908 Digitaria pauciflora seeds, 730 Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum seeds (from within ENP), and 32,703 Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana seeds

[[Page 46711]]

(from multiple sites) to the National Center for Genetic Resources 
Preservation (NCGRP) for use in ex situ conservation and ecological 
studies (Lange 2016, pers. comm.).
Summary of Factor E
    Threats from other natural or manmade factors to these four plants 
include nonnative, invasive plants; management practices (such as 
mowing); recreation (including ORV use), effects from small population 
size and isolation; limited geographic range; and stochastic events 
including hurricanes, storm surges, and wildfires. Additionally, these 
plants are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, 
including sea level rise, as changes in the water table, increased soil 
salinity from partial inundation, and storm surge will likely result in 
vegetation shifts in the decades prior to the fully anticipated sea 
level rise. Some of these threats (e.g., nonnative species) may be 
reduced on public lands due to active programs by Federal, State, and 
County land managers. Many of the remaining populations of these plants 
are small and geographically isolated, and genetic variability is 
likely low, increasing the inherent risk due to overall low resilience 
of these plants. The threats act together to impact populations of 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana.

Cumulative Effects of Threats

    When two or more threats affect populations of Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, the 
effects of those threats could interact or become compounded, producing 
a cumulative adverse effect that is greater than the impact of either 
threat alone. The most obvious cases in which cumulative adverse 
effects would be significant are those in which small populations 
(Factor E) are affected by threats that result in destruction or 
modification of habitat (Factor A), ORV damage (Factor E), or 
stochastic events, such as hurricanes, storm surges, wildfires (Factor 
E). The limited distributions and/or small population sizes of many 
populations of S. reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and D. carthagenensis var. floridana make 
them extremely susceptible to the detrimental effects of further 
habitat modification, degradation, and loss, as well as other 
anthropogenic threats. Mechanisms leading to the decline of S. 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and D. carthagenensis var. floridana, as discussed above, 
range from local (e.g., agriculture) to regional (e.g., development, 
fragmentation, nonnative species) to global influences (e.g., effects 
of climate change, sea level rise). The synergistic effects of threats, 
such as impacts from hurricanes on a species with a limited 
distribution and small populations, make it difficult to predict 
population viability. While these stressors may act in isolation, it is 
more probable that many stressors are acting simultaneously (or in 
combination) on populations of S. reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, D. 
pauciflora, C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and D. carthagenensis var. 
floridana, making them more vulnerable.

Determination of Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for 
determining whether a species is an endangered species or threatened 
species and should be included on the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (i.e., ``listed''). Under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (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. Listing actions may be warranted 
based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.

Determination of Status Throughout All of the Species' Ranges

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to 
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana. Numerous populations of the four plants have been extirpated 
from these species' historical ranges, and habitat destruction and 
modification resulting from human population growth and development, 
agricultural conversion, and inadequate fire management (Factor A); 
competition from nonnative, invasive species (Factor E); changes in 
climatic conditions, including sea level rise and changes in hydrology 
(Factor E); and natural stochastic events, including hurricanes, storm 
surges, and wildfires (Factor E) are threats to the existing 
populations. Existing regulatory mechanisms have not led to a reduction 
or removal of threats impacting the four plants (see Factor D 
discussion, above). These threats are ongoing, rangewide, and expected 
to continue in the future. A significant percentage of populations of 
the four plants are relatively small and isolated from one another, and 
their ability to recolonize suitable habitat is unlikely without human 
intervention, if at all. The threats have had and will continue to have 
substantial adverse effects on the four plants and their habitats. 
Although attempts are ongoing to alleviate or minimize some of these 
threats at certain locations, all populations appear to be impacted by 
one or more threats.
    Due to the stressors described in detail above, Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana is presently in danger of extinction 
throughout its entire range due to the immediacy and severity of 
threats currently impacting the species. The risk of extinction is high 
because there are few (9) extant populations and the majority of the 
populations are small and isolated, and have limited to no potential 
for recolonization. Therefore, on the basis of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we list Dalea carthagenensis 
var. floridana as an endangered species in accordance with sections 
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a threatened species status 
is not appropriate for this species because of the contracted range and 
small population size of Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana and 
because the threats are occurring rangewide, are ongoing, and are 
expected to continue into the future.
    Sideroxlyon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 
and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum face threats similar to Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana. However, we find that endangered species 
status is not appropriate for these three species. While we have 
evidence of threats under Factors A and E affecting the species, large 
populations of these three species are protected and actively managed 
at ENP and BCNP (Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, ENP 
(10,000-100,000 plants); Digitaria pauciflora, BCNP (>10,000 plants) 
and ENP (100,000-200,000 plants); and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum ENP (10,000-100,000 plants)). Short- and medium-term threats 
to these three plants in these protected areas are being addressed. 
However, sea level rise is projected to have profound negative effects 
on the habitat of these plants in the foreseeable future. Decades prior 
to

[[Page 46712]]

inundation, pine rocklands and associated habitats are likely to 
undergo habitat transitions related to climate change, including 
changes to hydrology and increasing vulnerability to storm surge. In 
addition, many existing habitat fragments located in urban areas are 
projected to be developed for housing as the human population grows and 
adjusts to changing sea levels under this scenario. Therefore, based on 
the best available information, we find that Sideroxlyon reclinatum 
ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, and Chamaesyce deltoidea 
ssp. pinetorum are likely to become endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their 
ranges, and we list these species as threatened species in accordance 
with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Determination of Status in a Significant Portion of the Range

    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The phrase ``significant portion of 
its range'' is not defined by the Act, and a district court has held 
that aspects of the Service's Final Policy on Interpretation of the 
Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species 
Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species and ``Threatened Species'' 
(79 FR 37577 (July 1, 2014)) (SPR Policy) were not valid. Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, No. 14-cv-02506-RM (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 
2017) (Pygmy-Owl Decision).
    Although the court's order in that case has not yet gone into 
effect, if the court denies the pending motion for reconsideration, the 
SPR Policy would become vacated. Therefore, we have examined the plain 
language of the Act and court decisions addressing the Service's 
application of the SPR phrase in various listing decisions, and for 
purposes of this rulemaking we are applying the interpretation set out 
below for the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' and its 
context in determining whether or not a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species. Because the interpretation we are 
applying is consistent with the SPR Policy, we summarize herein the 
bases for our interpretation, and also refer the public to the SPR 
Policy itself for a more-detailed explanation of our reasons for 
interpreting the phrase in this way.
    An important factor that influences the question of whether an SPR 
analysis is necessary here is what the consequence would be if the 
Service were to find that Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, 
Sideroxlyon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, or 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range. Two 
district court decisions have evaluated whether the outcomes of the 
Service's SPR determinations were reasonable. As described in the SPR 
Policy, both courts found that, once the Service determines that a 
``species''--which can include a species, subspecies, or DPS under ESA 
Section 3(16)--meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species,'' the species must be listed in its entirety and 
the Act's protections applied consistently to all members of that 
species (subject to modification of protections through special rules 
under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). See Defenders of Wildlife v. 
Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1222 (D. Mont. 2010) (delisting of the 
Northern Rocky Mountains DPS of gray wolf; appeal dismissed as moot 
because of public law vacating the listing, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26769 
(9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2012)); WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 09-00574-
PHX-FJM, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253, 15-16 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010) 
(Gunnison's prairie dog). The issue has not been addressed by a Federal 
Court of Appeals.
    Consistent with the district court case law, we interpret that the 
consequence of finding that Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, 
Sideroxlyon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, or 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range would 
be that the entire species would be listed as an endangered species or 
threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections would be 
applied to all individuals of the species wherever found. Thus, the 
``throughout all'' phrase and the SPR phrase provide two independent 
bases for listing. We note that in the Act Congress placed the ``all'' 
language before the SPR phrase in the definitions of ``endangered 
species'' and ``threatened species.'' This suggests that Congress 
intended that an analysis based on consideration of the entire range 
should receive primary focus. Thus, the first step we undertook, above, 
in our assessment of the status of the species was to determine its 
status throughout all of its range. Having determined that Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana is in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range and that Sideroxlyon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
Digitaria pauciflora, or Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum are likely 
to become endangered species within the foreseeable future, we now 
examine whether it is necessary to determine their status throughout a 
significant portion of their ranges.
    Because we found Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana to be in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range, we do not need to 
conduct an analysis of whether there is any significant portion of its 
range where the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become 
so in the foreseeable future. This is consistent with the Act because 
when we find that a species is currently in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range (i.e., meets the definition of an 
endangered species), the species is experiencing high-magnitude threats 
across its range or threats are so high in particular areas that they 
severely affect the species across its range. Therefore, the species is 
in danger of extinction throughout every portion of its range and an 
analysis of whether there is any SPR that may be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so would not result in a different 
outcome.
    Because we found that Sideroxlyon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
Digitaria pauciflora, and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum are 
likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of their range, we do not need to conduct an analysis of 
whether there is any significant portion of the range where these 
species are in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future. This interpretation is consistent with the Act for 
the following three reasons: (1) It ensures that the species qualifies 
for only one listing status; (2) it preserves a meaningful standard for 
when a portion of a species' range is significant; and (3) it allows 
the Service to apply the appropriate level of protection to the 
species.

Critical Habitat 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 or 
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that 
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of 
the following situations exist:

[[Page 46713]]

    (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or
    (2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to 
the species. In determining whether a designation would not be 
beneficial, the factors the Service may consider include but are not 
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a 
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.''

Prudency of Critical Habitat

    There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to 
collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for these species, 
and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to 
initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that the 
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, we 
next determine whether such designation of critical habitat would not 
be beneficial to the species. We have determined that there are 
habitat-based threats to these species identified under Factor A. 
Therefore, we find that the designation of critical habitat would be 
beneficial to these species through the provisions of section 7 of the 
Act. Because we have determined that the designation of critical 
habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the four plant 
species and would be beneficial, we find that designation of critical 
habitat is prudent for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, Sideroxylon 
reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, and Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find whether critical habitat for the four 
plant species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) 
state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the 
following situations exist:
    (i) Information sufficient to perform required analysis of the 
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.''
    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat after taking 
into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and 
any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the 
habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 
and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. A careful 
assessment of the economic impacts that may occur due to a critical 
habitat designation is still ongoing, and we are in the process of 
acquiring the necessary information needed to perform that assessment. 
The information sufficient to perform a required analysis of the 
impacts of the designation is lacking. Accordingly, we find that 
critical habitat for these species, in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(A) of the Act, to be not determinable at this time. When 
critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an 
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, 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; 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 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. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop 
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. 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.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
downlisting or 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. Recovery teams (composed of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and 
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When 
completed, a recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final 
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered) or from our South Florida Ecological Services Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES).
    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.
    Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for 
recovery actions will 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 
will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that 
promote the protection or recovery of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. Information on our 
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found 
at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.

[[Page 46714]]

    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 
Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana. Additionally, we invite you to submit 
any new information on these plants whenever it becomes available and 
any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or 
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is 
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation 
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy 
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may 
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within these species' habitat that may 
require consultation as described in the preceding paragraph and 
include management and any other landscape-altering activities on 
Federal lands administered by the National Park Service (ENP and BCNP), 
Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security (United 
States Coast Guard); issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 
1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; construction 
and management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-way by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; construction and maintenance of 
roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration; and disaster 
relief efforts conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    With respect to endangered plants, prohibitions outlined at 50 CFR 
17.61 make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign 
commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale 
in interstate or foreign commerce, or to remove and reduce to 
possession any such plant species from areas under Federal 
jurisdiction. In addition, for endangered plants, the Act prohibits 
malicious damage or destruction of any such species on any area under 
Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging 
or destroying of any such species on any other area in knowing 
violation of any State law or regulation, or in the course of any 
violation of a State criminal trespass law. Exceptions to these 
prohibitions are outlined in 50 CFR 17.62.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.62. With regard to 
endangered plants, the Service may issue a permit authorizing any 
activity otherwise prohibited by 50 CFR 17.61 for scientific purposes 
or for enhancing the propagation or survival of endangered plants.
    With respect to threatened plants, 50 CFR 17.71 provides that all 
of the provisions in 50 CFR 17.61 shall apply to threatened plants. 
These provisions make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, 
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or to remove 
and reduce to possession any such plant species from areas under 
Federal jurisdiction. However, there is one exception for threatened 
plants. Seeds of cultivated specimens of species treated as threatened 
shall be exempt from all the provisions of 50 CFR 17.61, provided that 
a statement that the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the 
seeds or their container during the course of any activity otherwise 
subject to these regulations.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened plants under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.72. A permit issued under 
this section must be for one of the following: scientific purposes, the 
enhancement of the propagation or survival of threatened species, 
economic hardship, botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational 
purposes, or other activities consistent with the purposes and policy 
of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a final listing 
on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed 
species. Based on the best available information, the following actions 
are unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities 
are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit 
requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including 
herbicide and pesticide use, which are carried out in accordance with 
any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best 
management practices; and
    (2) Normal residential landscape activities.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the South 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT). Requests for copies of regulations regarding listed species 
and inquiries about prohibitions and permits should be addressed to the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Division, 
Endangered Species Permits, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345 
(telephone 404-679-7140; fax 404-679-7081).
    With Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 
pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana listed under the Act, the State of 
Florida's Endangered Species Act (Florida Statutes 581.185) is 
automatically invoked, which also prohibits take of these plants and 
encourages conservation by State government agencies. However, as 
discussed above, these plants are already listed as endangered on the 
State of Florida's Regulated Plant Index. Further, the State may enter 
into agreements with Federal agencies to administer and manage any area 
required for the conservation, management, enhancement, or protection 
of endangered species (Florida Statutes 581.185). Funds for these 
activities could be made available under section 6 of the Act 
(Cooperation with the States). Thus, the Federal protection afforded to 
these plants by listing them as endangered or threatened species will 
be reinforced and supplemented by protection under State law.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 the Act; this list 
is not comprehensive:
    (1) Importing any such species into, or exporting any of the four 
plant species from, the United States.
    (2) Removing and reducing to possession any of the four plant 
species from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damaging or 
destroying

[[Page 46715]]

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana on any such area; or removing, 
cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying D. carthagenensis var. 
floridana 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) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in 
interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the 
course of a commercial activity, any of the four plant species.
    (4) Selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce 
any of the four plant species.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with 
listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes. No tribal lands are affected by this 
final rule.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
South Florida Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

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. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by adding entries for Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum, Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, Digitaria pauciflora, 
and Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 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
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp.        Pineland sandmat..  Wherever found....  T                82 FR [Insert Federal
 pinetorum.                                                                                Register page where
                                                                                           the document begins];
                                                                                           10/06/2017.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Dalea carthagenensis var.        Florida prairie-    Wherever found....  E                82 FR [Insert Federal
 floridana.                       clover.                                                  Register page where
                                                                                           the document begins];
                                                                                           10/06/2017.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Digitaria pauciflora...........  Florida crabgrass.  Wherever found....  T                82 FR [Insert Federal
                                                                                           Register page where
                                                                                           the document begins];
                                                                                           10/06/2017.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp.      Everglades bully..  Wherever found....  T                82 FR [Insert Federal
 austrofloridense.                                                                         Register page where
                                                                                           the document begins];
                                                                                           10/06/2017.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: September 7, 2017.
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-21617 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P