Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Chrysopsis floridana (Florida Golden Aster) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 33177-33191 [2021-12741]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33177-33191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12741]



[[Page 33177]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201]
RIN 1018-BE00


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
remove the Florida golden aster (Chrysopsis floridana), a short-lived 
perennial, from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
(List) due to recovery (delist). This determination is based on our 
evaluation of the best available scientific and commercial information, 
which indicates that the threats to the species have been eliminated or 
reduced to the point that the species has recovered and no longer meets 
the definition of a threatened or endangered species under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If this proposal is 
finalized, the Florida golden aster will be removed from the List.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
August 23, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by August 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed 
Rules box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking 
on ``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: JAO (PRB/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
    Document availability: The proposed rule and supporting documents 
(including the Species Status Assessment (SSA), post delisting 
monitoring plan, list of references cited, and 5-year review) are 
available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0071. We will notify the public on our website, https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/, when these documents are available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, North Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, FL 32256; telephone 722-469-
4251. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments on:
    (1) Information concerning the biology and ecology of the Florida 
golden aster;
    (2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the 
Florida golden aster, particularly any data on the possible effects of 
climate change as it relates to habitat, the extent of State 
protection, and management that would be provided to this plant as a 
delisted species;
    (3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
the Florida golden aster that may negatively impact or benefit the 
species; and
    (4) Any new information about this species and threats from 
invasive plants.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a 
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public 
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's 
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual 
public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3).

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Florida golden aster. The SSA team was composed of Service 
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report 
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data 
available concerning the status of the species, including the

[[Page 33178]]

impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and 
beneficial) affecting the species.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994), our August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on the Peer 
Review Process, and the Office of Management and Budget's December 16, 
2004, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (revised June 
2012), we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information 
contained in the Florida golden aster SSA report. We sent the SSA 
report to six independent peer reviewers and received two responses. 
Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/. The SSA report was also submitted to our 
Federal, State, and Tribal partners for scientific review. We received 
review from two partners (Sheryl Bowman, Environmental Lands Management 
Coordinator, Hillsborough County, Lake Frances Field Office and 
Jennifer Possley, Conservation Team Leader/Field Biologist, Fairchild 
Tropical Botanic Garden). In preparing this proposed rule, we 
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the 
final SSA report.

Previous Federal Actions

    The Florida golden aster was listed as endangered on May 16, 1986 
(51 FR 17974), under the Act. On August 29, 1988, we released a 
recovery plan for the Florida golden aster. The recovery plan suggested 
that we consider the species for reclassification to threatened status 
when 10 geographically distinct self-sustaining populations of the 
plant are protected in Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas 
Counties, Florida. The latest 5-year review, completed March 20, 2017, 
indicated that the species' status was improving, assigned a Recovery 
Priority Number of 8 (indicating moderate degree of threat and high 
recovery potential), and recommended downlisting to threatened. The 
Service initiated the Florida golden aster SSA (see above) to aid in 
determining the appropriateness of reclassifying the species.

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and 
overall viability of the Florida golden aster is presented in the SSA 
report (USFWS 2018, available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/). A 
summary of that information is presented here.
    Florida golden aster is endemic to xeric (very dry) uplands east 
and southeast of the Tampa Bay area of central Florida. The historical 
range of the Florida golden aster is thought to span parts of 
Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas, Highlands, and Hardee Counties, but 
the true extent of the historical range is uncertain because the 
ecosystems on which it occurs were rapidly converted to residential, 
commercial, and agricultural uses after settlement of the region. 
Agriculture began in 1880 with grazing and production of citrus and row 
crops. Residential and commercial activity began around 1840, mainly in 
the Tampa Bay area and beach communities through the 1940s and 1950s, 
but suburban and rural areas started expanding in the 1960s and 1970s 
and development has continued at a consistent rate. The species was 
first collected and described from a specimen in Manatee County in 
early 1901, with subsequent collections in Pinellas and Hillsborough 
Counties in the 1920s. The earliest known Manatee County and Pinellas 
County populations occurred in coastal areas of Bradenton Beach and St. 
Petersburg Beach. However, these populations have since been 
extirpated. The last remaining natural population known to occur in 
Pinellas County was discovered in 1983; however, a housing development 
eliminated all available habitat by 1985.
    When the species was listed as endangered in 1986, nine known 
extant populations of the species occurred in five locations, all 
coastal, in southeastern Hillsborough County (Wunderlin et al. 1981, 
entire). Since listing of the species, increased survey efforts have 
resulted in the discovery of additional populations, including 
occurrences further inland. Many of the newly discovered locations have 
since been acquired as protected sites with active conservation 
management activities implemented to improve habitat conditions. As 
discussed below, introductions have occurred on conservation lands in 
Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties. It is not known 
whether these introduction sites were historically occupied by the 
Florida golden aster, or if so, how long ago they supported natural 
populations.
    Based on the most current surveys across the species' range (2006-
2018), 30 known extant populations, natural and introduced, occur in 5 
counties (Hardee--4, Highlands--1, Hillsborough--16, Manatee--5, and 
Pinellas--4). Populations were delineated using a 2-kilometers (km) 
separation distance between occurrences (see Current Condition, below, 
for more information). Of these, 25 populations occur entirely or 
mostly on 22 protected sites, meaning a site that has been acquired in 
fee simple and placed into long-term conservation, or a conservation 
easement or other binding land agreement by the site owner that shows a 
commitment to its conservation in perpetuity. In addition, all sites 
have a management agreement or plan both developed and implemented. 
None of the lands occupied by the Florida golden aster are federally 
owned or managed. The remaining five extant populations occur on 
private lands or along roadways or railroad lines.
    The most recent surveys showed that just over half of the Florida 
golden aster individuals occurred in nine introduced populations at 
eight sites. The earliest introductions took place in 1986; of those 10 
introduced populations, 3 are still extant in Hardee and Manatee 
Counties, while 7 others in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties failed. 
Introductions were again initiated during 2008-2013, when Bok Tower 
Gardens introduced 6 additional populations in Hardee, Manatee, and 
Pinellas Counties, containing 24,825 plants (as of the most recent 
censuses, with about 12,000 in one population). All 6 populations had 
reached sizes >1,000 plants except for the populations at Duette 
Preserve (2 populations, North and South). However, given that the 
Duette populations were the most recently introduced populations 
(2013), have been growing rapidly, and are surrounded by ample habitat 
and little to no development, they should also reach sizes comparable 
to the other introduced populations.
    According to the most recent surveys, approximately 50,000 
individuals exist with over 90 percent occurring in the populations 
located on protected lands. Although this estimate is the best 
available information, it gives only an approximation of the true 
current abundance of the Florida golden aster because surveys are not 
conducted every year and are conducted differently by various 
biologists for different purposes. Moreover, population sizes fluctuate 
annually. Twelve of the 30 populations had more than 1,000 individual 
plants present when last observed. We note that a 56-km gap occurs 
between the easternmost naturally occurring population in Manatee 
County and the nearest naturally occurring population in Hardee County, 
and it is not presently known whether this gap is due to the lack of 
suitable habitat, lack of observation, a long-distance dispersal event, 
or fragmentation of a formerly continuous distribution.

[[Page 33179]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN21.002

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened 
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is 
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects. We consider these same five 
factors in reclassifying a species from endangered to threatened, and 
in delisting a species (50 CFR 424.11(c)-(e)).
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary of the Interior 
determines whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered 
species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after the Service conducts 
this cumulative analysis and describes the expected effect on the 
species now and in the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.

[[Page 33180]]

    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be reclassified or delisted under the 
Act. It does, however, provide the scientific basis that informs our 
regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of 
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess Florida golden aster viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years); redundancy supports the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to 
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, 
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a 
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to 
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental 
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluate an individual species' life-history 
needs. During the next stage, we assess the historical and current 
condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, 
including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current 
condition. In the final stage, we make predictions about the species' 
responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic 
influences. Throughout all of these stages, we use the best available 
information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to 
sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this information to 
inform our regulatory decision.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an 
endangered or a threatened species because of any factors affecting its 
continued existence. The following is a summary of the key results and 
conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found on 
the Southeast Region website at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071.

Summary of SSA Analysis

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

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its 
Habitat or Range

    The main threat to this species at the time of listing was the 
destruction and modification of habitat. Habitat destruction, 
modification, and degradation on private lands and habitat degradation 
from lack of adequate habitat management on public lands remain the 
primary risk factor to the species. The five populations occurring on 
private lands remain subject to adverse human activity including 
mowing, dumping, off-road recreational vehicles use, and land clearing. 
However, these activities are no longer threats to the 25 populations 
on public conservation lands because of controlled access and 
restricted use.
    Lack of management, especially the absence of periodic fire, 
historically led to habitat degradation throughout the species' range. 
The Florida golden aster occurs in open sandy patches that historically 
were maintained by fire under natural conditions. Without naturally 
ignited fires or prescribed fire applications, the habitat becomes 
overgrown, resulting in unfavorable conditions for the species' 
persistence. Ideal habitat management is generally regarded as 
prescribed burning that mimics the historical burn patterns (frequent 
low-intensity fires in sandhill, less frequent burns in scrub, with 
fires primarily in late spring and summer) and periodic mechanical 
disturbance of the ground cover during late winter or early spring when 
seeds are dispersed (Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121-137). Initial 
burning to restore the openness of degraded habitat involves frequent 
intense fires, after which

[[Page 33181]]

burning can be less intense and frequent to simply maintain the 
habitat. Failing to maintain open scrub habitat can disrupt Florida 
golden aster reproduction, survival, and dispersal (Lambert and Menges 
1996, pp. 121-137).
    As with habitat destruction and modification, this threat remains a 
concern mainly on private and non-conservation lands. Populations that 
occur on public conservation lands are often being managed to maintain 
optimal open scrub habitat. However, budget constraints, manageability, 
conflicting priorities, and other factors (weather, lack of equipment, 
staff shortages, etc.) may preclude proper management activities even 
on conservation lands. Additionally, proximity to urbanized areas can 
limit the number of days available for prescribed burns, and 
urbanization in the Tampa Bay area is increasing rapidly (Xian et al. 
2005, pp. 920-928). To be optimal, burn days must have wind speeds and 
wind directions that do not unduly burden urbanized areas with smoke. 
For this reason, large rural tracts of habitat are easier to burn than 
small tracts tucked into developed areas. Increasing development could 
lead to further decreases in the ability to conduct prescribed burning 
in the future, which may or may not be replaced with adequate habitat 
management by other means (e.g., mowing) that are more expensive than 
using fire. The type of development also factors into management 
ability and flexibility, with major roads, schools, hospitals, 
retirement homes (places with vulnerable populations) weighing more 
heavily on the decision of if/when to burn than other types of 
development (Camposano 2018, pers. comm.).
    Since the time of listing, conservation efforts for Florida golden 
aster and other scrub habitat species have reduced the threat of 
habitat destruction, modification, and degradation. These conservation 
efforts include acquiring properties where the species naturally 
occurs, introducing populations on conservation lands, and conducting 
ongoing habitat management on conservation lands (e.g., prescribed 
burning). While habitat destruction and modification may still occur on 
private lands, 83 percent of the sites are on public conservation lands 
and, therefore, for the most part, are adequately managed and 
protected. Land acquisitions and introductions have increased the 
number of established populations within the historical range and have 
resulted in the expansion of the species' known range. Further, if this 
rulemaking process results in the species being delisted, it will 
remain listed as threatened under State laws. The State will develop a 
management plan and regulatory guidelines to monitor the species. Based 
on the best available information, we conclude that resources for 
necessary management activities on conservation lands will continue.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    At the time of listing, this species was not known to be threatened 
by commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational uses. This 
factor of the listing process continues not to be a threat to the 
Florida golden aster at this time.

Disease or Predation

    Grazing by domestic livestock was initially identified as a 
stressor because the populations were on private lands and many of the 
properties were in cattle production. However, at present the 25 
populations on conservation lands are not subject to any agriculture 
practices. No cattle grazing occurs on any of these properties. As to 
the populations on private lands, acquisition of scrub habitat 
containing Florida golden aster in Hardee County would allow proper 
management of these tracts, as has been initiated on public lands in 
Hillsborough County. Because Hardee County has extensive areas of 
improved pasture and unimproved pasture, we will assess the effect of 
cattle grazing on Florida golden aster habitat. Based on the 
information obtained from this assessment, we will be able to provide 
management recommendations to cattle ranchers to protect Florida golden 
aster on private property (Bok Tower Gardens 2020, p. 879). Therefore, 
we no longer consider grazing to be a threat.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Florida Administrative Code 5B-40 (Preservation of Native Flora 
of Florida) provides the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
Services limited authority to protect plants on State and private lands 
(primarily from the standpoint of illegal harvest). Florida golden 
aster is listed as an Endangered Plant under this statute, which 
requires anyone wishing to ``willfully harvest, collect, pick, remove, 
injure, or destroy any plant listed as endangered growing on the 
private land of another or on any public land or water'' to ``obtain 
the written permission of the owner of the land or water or his legal 
representative'' (FAC 5B-40.003(1)(a)). A permit is also required to 
transport ``for the purpose of sale, selling, or offering for sale any 
plant contained on the endangered plant list which is harvested from 
such person's own property'' (FAC 5B-40.003(1)(c)). The delisting of 
the Florida golden aster under the Act will not affect this State 
listing.
    A number of sites, consisting of thousands of plants, are now under 
county and State protection. Specifically, Hillsborough County has 
purchased considerable acreage through the Endangered Land Acquisition 
and Protection Program (ELAPP), which contains several large 
populations. In 1987, Hillsborough County passed the Environmentally 
Sensitive Lands Ordinance that established the foundation for ELAPP. 
This program applies to nine populations on six sites in Hillsborough 
County. In 1990, this ordinance was amended and approved for another 20 
years by increasing county taxes to allow additional funds to acquire 
conservation lands. In November 2008, voters approved the issuance of 
up to $200 million in bonds for additional purchases.
    ELAPP has worked with the Southwest Florida Water Management 
District and Florida Forever to jointly fund the acquisition of lands. 
Some of this money is also used for ELAPP to actively manage their 
properties to benefit Florida golden aster. Therefore, we find that the 
existing regulatory mechanisms would provide sufficient protections to 
the species and habitat after delisting, especially on public lands 
with ordinance protection. Currently, 27 sites where the species occurs 
are subject to Florida State law. These State and local protections 
have proven effective. For example, prescribed burning will continue 
through the ELAPP. Although we acknowledge that this could change in 
the future, we do not anticipate any future changes to the 
implementation of these programs at this time.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and 
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate 
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC). A recent compilation of climate change and its effects is 
available from reports of the IPCC (IPCC 2014, entire). The term 
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability 
of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) 
that persists for an extended period, typically decades or

[[Page 33182]]

longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human 
activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in 
climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects 
may be positive, neutral, or negative and they may change over time, 
depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the 
effects of interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat 
fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use 
our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including 
uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.
    The IPCC concluded that the climate system is warming (Pachauri et 
al. 2014, entire). Effects associated with changes in climate have been 
observed, including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread 
changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, and wind patterns and 
aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, 
heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (Pachauri et al. 
2014, entire). Species that are dependent on specialized habitat types, 
limited in distribution, or at the extreme periphery of their range may 
be most susceptible to the impacts of climate change (Byers and Norris 
2011, entire; Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193-210). However, while 
continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is 
unknown in many cases. The magnitude and rate of change could be 
affected by many factors (e.g., weather circulation patterns).
    According to the IPCC, ``most plant species cannot naturally shift 
their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and 
high projected rates of climate change on most landscapes'' (IPCC 2014, 
p. 13). Plant species with restricted ranges may experience population 
declines as a result of the effects of climate change. The concept of 
changing climate can be meaningfully assessed both by looking into the 
future and reviewing past changes.
    Using the National Climate Change Viewer and greenhouse gas 
emission scenario Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, we 
calculated projected annual mean changes in the period 1981-2010 to 
those projected for 2025-2049 for maximum temperature, precipitation, 
soil storage, and evaporative deficit in all counties where Florida 
golden aster occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, entire). We also 
calculated projected annual mean changes for a more conservative 
greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP 4.5) using the same timeframes 
for maximum temperature, precipitation, soil storage, and evaporative 
deficit in all counties where Florida golden aster occurs (Adler and 
Hostetler 2017, entire). Based on these results, all 13 counties within 
the range of Florida golden aster will be subjected to higher 
temperatures (annual mean increase of 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) 
(RCP 4.5) or 2.9 [deg]F (RCP 8.5)) and slightly higher precipitation 
(annual mean increase of 0.1 inch per month (RCP 4.5) or 0.2 inch per 
month (RCP 8.5)) relative to the period of 1981-2010.
    Additionally, climate change will likely influence Florida golden 
aster into the future by affecting habitat suitability and the ability 
to manage habitat with prescribed fire. Species that are dependent on 
specialized habitat types, limited in distribution (e.g., Florida 
golden aster), or at the extreme periphery of their range may be most 
susceptible to the impacts of climate change (Byers and Norris 2011, 
entire; Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193-210). There is evidence that some 
terrestrial plant populations have been able to adapt and respond to 
changing climatic conditions (Franks et al. 2014, pp. 123-139). Both 
plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf size or phenology) and 
evolutionary (shift in allelic frequencies) responses to changes in 
climate have been detected. Given enough time, plants can alter their 
ranges, resulting in range shifts, reductions, or increases (Kelly and 
Goulden 2008, pp. 11823-11826; Loarie et al. 2008, p. 2502).
    The climate in the Southeastern United States has warmed about 2 
[deg]F from a cool period in the 1960s and 1970s and is expected to 
continue to rise (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396-417). Projections for 
future precipitation trends in the Southeast are less certain than 
those for temperature are, but suggest that overall annual 
precipitation will decrease, and that tropical storms will occur less 
frequently, but with more force (more category 4 and 5 hurricanes) than 
historical averages (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396-417). Sea levels are 
expected to rise globally, potentially exceeding 1 m of sea level rise 
by 2100 (Reynolds et al. 2012, entire). Local sea level rise impacts 
depend not only on how much the ocean level itself is increasing, but 
also on land subsidence and/or changes in offshore currents (Carter et 
al. 2014, pp. 396-417), and impacts on terrestrial ecosystems can occur 
via submergence of habitat during storm surges or permanently, salt 
water intrusion into the water table, and erosion. Of the current 
populations of the Florida golden aster, only one (Fort De Soto County 
Park, Pinellas County) is directly vulnerable to inundation from 0.3 
meters of sea level rise, a reasonable estimate of sea level rise by 
2050. Hotter and drier conditions in the future could lead to fewer 
days with optimal conditions for prescribed burning, which could lead 
to reduced habitat quality if land managers are unable to make up for 
the lack of burning with adequate mechanical treatment.
    It is possible that there will be increases in the number of 
lightning strikes and sizes and severities of resulting fires, which 
could have a positive or negative effect on specific Florida golden 
aster populations. Hurricanes similarly could have positive or negative 
effects on the species. Prolonged flooding could harm populations, but 
the mechanical disturbance of trees being uprooted from flood events 
could improve habitat for colonizing species like the Florida golden 
aster (Menges and Johnson, pers. comm. 2017).
    Other potential climate change effects include changes in 
temperature and precipitation. Projections for future precipitation 
trends in the Southeast are less certain than those for temperature, 
but suggest that overall annual precipitation will decrease. Hotter and 
drier conditions may complicate the ability to manage Florida golden 
aster with prescribed fires. Some terrestrial plant populations have 
been able to adapt and respond to changing climatic conditions (Franks 
et al. 2013, entire). Both plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf size 
or phenology) and evolutionary (shift in allelic frequencies) responses 
to changes in climate have been detected. Both can occur rapidly and 
often simultaneously (Franks et al. 2013, entire). However, relatively 
few studies are available that (1) directly examine plant responses 
over time, (2) clearly demonstrate adaptation or the causal climatic 
driver of these responses, or (3) use quantitative methods to 
distinguish plastic versus evolutionary responses (Franks et al. 2013, 
entire).
    As noted earlier, only one population (Fort De Soto County Park, 
Pinellas County) is directly vulnerable to inundation from 0.3 meters 
of sea level rise, a reasonable estimate of sea level rise by 2050. We 
have no additional information or data regarding effects of climate 
change with respect to the Florida golden aster populations into the 
future; further research will be helpful to determine how this species 
responds directly to changes in temperature and water availability. 
However, from this information, we anticipate that effects to Florida 
golden aster from climate change will be limited and will not rise to 
the level of a threat.

[[Page 33183]]

    Other influences not discussed in detail here, either because they 
are not thought to be a major threat or there is little information 
available, include invasive plant species like cogongrass (Imperata 
cylindrica), and future genetic consequences of small and/or 
translocated populations.

Synergistic Effects

    Many of the stressors discussed in this analysis could work in 
concert with each other and result in a cumulative adverse effect to 
Florida golden aster, e.g., one stressor may make the species more 
vulnerable to other threats.
    Synergistic interactions are possible between effects of climate 
change and effects of other threats, such as mowing, dumping, off-road 
recreational vehicle use, and land clearing. However, we currently do 
not have information to determine the likely effects of climate change 
on interaction/competition between species, or on drought conditions. 
Uncertainty about how different plant species will respond under a 
changing climate makes projecting possible synergistic effects of 
climate change on Florida golden aster speculative. However, the 
increases documented in the number of populations since the species was 
listed do not indicate that cumulative effects of various activities 
and stressors are affecting the viability of the species at this time. 
Based on our analysis of future stressors, we do not anticipate that 
cumulative effects will affect the viability of the species in the 
foreseeable future. Likewise, climate change, as discussed above, with 
hotter and drier conditions can add additional complexity to future 
prescribed burns. Available habitat in those tracts that are easier to 
burn, and that can be managed by other methods (e.g., mechanical 
manipulation) will be sufficient. Similarly, most of the potential 
stressors we identified either have not occurred to the extent 
originally anticipated at the time of listing or are adequately managed 
as described in this proposal to delist the species. In addition, we do 
not anticipate significant stressors to increase on publicly owned 
lands or lands that are managed for the species.

Current Condition

Delineating Populations

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

Current Resiliency

    Resiliency refers to the ability of populations to withstand 
stochastic events, whether demographic, environmental, or 
anthropogenic. Populations with low resiliency are highly vulnerable to 
stochastic events and face a high risk of extirpation within the next 
few decades. Populations with moderate resiliency are less likely to be 
extirpated within the next few decades, but require additional growth 
(with help of regular habitat management and/or restoration) to become 
more self-sustaining and resilient to stochastic events. Populations 
with high resiliency are unlikely to be extirpated within the next 30 
years in the absence of catastrophes or significant declines in the 
quality of habitat management. Populations with very high resiliency 
are the most robust and resistant to stochastic fluctuations.
    In the SSA, we assessed resiliency for each population using three 
factors: Population size, habitat protection, and area of available 
habitat. Other factors were considered that likely contribute to 
population resiliency, but data were not available to assess them over 
all or most of the populations including certain explicit measures of 
habitat quality, fire management, existence of land management plans, 
and population trends. While some past survey data are available for 
many populations, species experts did not feel comfortable comparing 
population counts across time periods. In many cases, differences in 
population sizes were likely not a result of increasing populations, 
but rather of differences in survey methodology, number of surveyors, 
and/or areas searched (e.g., surveyors who were more likely to visit 
known patches and not find new patches; alternately, a bias toward 
larger counts over time as old patches are revisited and additional 
patches are found). Nevertheless, we are confident that this population 
data demonstrates resiliency of the species. Regardless, this species 
has not been extensively studied; therefore, there was some uncertainty 
in the SSA in precisely how these factors influenced the Florida golden 
aster population resiliency.

Population Size

    Population size is both a direct contributor to resiliency and an 
indirect indicator of resiliency. Small populations are more 
susceptible to demographic and environmental stochastic events than 
larger populations. Small populations are also more likely to suffer 
from decreased fitness as a result of low genetic diversity from 
inbreeding or genetic drift (Willi et al. 2005, pp. 2255-2265). For 
Florida golden aster, large populations are more buffered from the 
effects of prescribed burning or other disturbances, which are 
necessary to maintain open habitat, but can temporarily reduce 
population sizes by killing plants. Indirectly, large population sizes 
are likely indicative of other conditions that contribute to population 
resiliency. For example, in the SSA, we did not have adequate data to 
assess habitat quality and the quality of management at all the Florida 
golden aster populations; therefore, we assumed large population sizes 
likely generally reflected good habitat quality and management (among 
other factors) compared to smaller populations, though this assumption 
may not hold in all cases.
    We categorized populations into 4 size classes: <100 individuals, 
100-500 individuals, 501-1,000 individuals, and >1,000 individuals. 
Each population size class was associated with one of the following 
baseline resiliency classes, respectively: Low, moderate, high, and 
very high (explained further below).
    We chose the population size threshold between high and very high 
resiliency of 1,000 individuals because it is the typical population 
size used to rank element occurrences as having ``excellent viability'' 
and likely to persist for the next 20-30 years (NatureServe 2008, 
entire). This is a generic population size limit that was not 
specifically tailored to Florida golden aster with empirical data. 
Further support for using 1,000 individuals as the threshold for the 
highest resiliency category came from a study of 10-year extirpation 
rates for populations of varying sizes of 8 short-lived plant species 
in Germany (Matthies et al. 2004, pp. 481-488). In this study, for 7 of 
8 species, the probability of population persistence increased with 
population size, and all populations of more than 1,000 individuals 
(flowering plants) persisted for the duration of the 10-year study.

[[Page 33184]]

    We obtained the most recent size data for all 30 populations, with 
data collected as recently as 2018 for some populations, and no older 
than 2006 for any population. Population sizes have undoubtedly changed 
since the last surveys for those populations that have not been 
surveyed as recently, as populations fluctuate in response to 
management actions, time since management, environmental events, 
stochastic demographic processes, etc. Thus, the reported numbers 
reflect best available estimates for population sizes, rather than 
precise counts meant to represent actual current population sizes. 
According to the SSA, population sizes included all plants counted, 
whether flowering or not. Survey data for some populations provided 
separate counts for each life stage, but for many populations, survey 
data were simply numbers with no information about whether that number 
was only flowering plants, or all plants (USFWS 2017, p. 22). Using 
total plant numbers, and assuming that ambiguous counts were minimum 
counts of total plants in each population, we were conservative in our 
population counts. The alternative of assuming that ambiguous counts 
were of only flowering adult plants, when they may have included basal 
rosettes, would inflate population sizes in cases where the assumption 
was wrong.

Habitat Protection

    Habitat was considered ``protected'' if it was acquired in fee 
simple and placed into long-term conservation by a nongovernmental, 
local, State, or Federal entity, or a binding land agreement. Protected 
sites have management plans developed and being implemented. The effect 
of the degree of habitat protection on resiliency is discussed below.

Habitat Area Available

    The Florida golden aster population sizes fluctuate, and can occur 
in high densities in small patches of habitat. However, as a general 
rule of thumb, for a given population size, a population covering a 
large area will be more resilient than a population covering a small 
area. A perturbation of the same size will have a proportionally larger 
effect on small-area populations than large-area populations. In 
assessing population resiliency, we considered the amount of habitat 
available rather than the amount of habitat occupied for two reasons. 
First, the amount of area occupied was very uncertain for most 
populations. Surveys are likely to return to known patches of the 
Florida golden aster, but new patches can be easily missed and it is 
likely that the data we had underestimates the true amount of area 
occupied by the Florida golden aster. Adding to the uncertainty, the 
most current spatial data for some populations came from 2006, and may 
no longer reflect the current distribution at those sites. Second, 
population footprints are not always static across available habitat; 
the Florida golden aster can spread into unoccupied areas as 
populations grow, or shift across a landscape as different areas become 
more or less suitable or both. For this reason, we used the amount of 
habitat available for populations to occupy currently, grow into, or 
shift into as a factor contributing to population resiliency. We 
identified available habitat within a 2-km radius around known 
occurrences, consistent with the assumption we made about pollinator 
movement when delineating populations. We characterized the available 
habitat for populations as small or large, with 14.2 hectares as the 
threshold between the two groups. This value was selected based on 
natural breaks in the data and expert input.

Classifying Resiliency Based on the Selected Factors

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

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

    Populations that occur on non-protected lands were assigned to the 
resiliency class one step lower than they would if they were on 
protected lands. By doing this, we did not mean to discount the 
importance of populations on non-protected lands to the viability of 
the species or imply that owners of these parcels are managing the land 
poorly or are harming the Florida golden aster. Large populations of 
Florida golden aster can be supported on private lands. For example, 
when private landowners burn pasture to improve forage for cattle, they 
may improve habitat for Florida golden aster. However, even large 
populations of fire-adapted scrub plants can rapidly decline due to 
poor management (e.g., Polygal lewtonii, Weekley and Menges 2012, 
entire; Warea carteri, Quintana-Ascenscio et al. 2011, entire), and 
these lands that are not protected for conservation are at higher risk 
of changes in management or land use that could harm Florida golden 
aster populations. For populations that extend across property 
boundaries and contain individuals occurring on both protected and non-
protected lands, we used the protection status that applied to the 
majority of individuals to classify the entire population.
    Populations occupying or surrounded by a small area of available 
habitat were assigned to the resiliency class one step lower than they 
would if they existed within a larger area of available habitat, as 
they are less able to withstand and

[[Page 33185]]

recover from perturbations or shift across a landscape as habitat 
quality changes. For any populations experiencing both of these 
resiliency-reducing conditions (small habitat area on non-protected 
lands), their resiliency score was only reduced one step rather than 
being reduced twice, once for each factor. The Duette populations were 
the most recently introduced populations (2013). They have been growing 
rapidly and are surrounded by ample habitat and little to no 
development; therefore, these two populations were projected to 
increase from high to very high resiliency.
    Summaries of the 30 delineated populations and their resiliency 
scores can be found in the SSA and in Table 2, below. In conclusion, 
resiliency scores remained stable.

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

Current Redundancy and Representation

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

[[Page 33186]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN21.003

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

Future Condition--Analytical Framework

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

[[Page 33187]]

developed. Populations classified as having high risk from development 
averaged 45.5 percent developed area within the same buffer, ranging 
from 23 to 85 percent. For three populations with a percent of 
developed area in the overlapping range between the two categories (23 
to 39 percent developed), the deciding factor between low risk and high 
risk was the distribution of development and roads around the 
population.

Habitat Quantity

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

Habitat Quality

    Habitat quality is closely tied to active habitat management to 
maintain openness either by prescribed burning or by other types of 
management. In constructing our scenarios, we considered two avenues by 
which future habitat management can be influenced, the level of habitat 
management effort and the amount and type of development near the 
Florida golden aster populations (to the extent the development affects 
the ability to conduct management actions, such as prescribed burns). 
First, the managing entities can choose their desired level of 
management effort by implementing (or not) a management plan or by 
allocating funding or personnel to or away from habitat management 
among competing priorities and limited resources. For our scenarios, we 
allowed for three levels of habitat management effort by managing 
entities. The first was management for stability, a moderate level of 
management that would be expected to maintain populations at their 
current size. The other two management levels were an increase, or a 
decrease, compared to management for stability. An increase in 
management effort would be expected to grow populations, while a 
decrease in management would be expected to result in population 
declines.
    The second avenue by which future habitat management can be 
influenced is development, particularly major roads and types of 
development associated with ``vulnerable'' human populations (e.g., 
schools, hospitals). This kind of development surrounding habitat 
limits management via prescribed burns by limiting the days that burns 
can take place--weather conditions have to align to ensure proper smoke 
management. For example, if a population is surrounded by nearby 
development to the north and west, it can only be burned when the wind 
is blowing to the south and east. As more development surrounds 
populations, there is less flexibility for prescribed burns. However, 
the appropriate radius around populations within which development 
might impact management ranges from 0.8 km up to 8.0 km as the 
appropriate radius depends on a variety of factors for each burn, 
including the type of development, temperature, humidity, wind 
conditions, size of the planned burn, risk tolerance of those 
implementing the burn, and other factors. For the SSA, we chose an 
intermediate value, 5 km, in which to examine current and predicted 
future development. In choosing this concrete value, we acknowledged 
that this number is in reality quite variable, and some burns will need 
to consider areas greater or less than 5 km away, but this value 
allowed us to gain a general understanding of the risks of development 
on managing surrounding populations.
    Within a 5-km radius around the Florida golden aster occurrences, 
we used geographic information systems (GIS) to examine current and 
projected urbanization and roads. Urbanization data came from the 
SLEUTH model, and road data was available from the Florida Department 
of Transportation. The SLEUTH model has previously been used to predict 
probabilities of urbanization across the Southeastern United States in 
10-year increments, and the resulting GIS data are freely available 
(Belyea and Terrando 2013, entire). For our 20-year future projection, 
we used the SLEUTH data sets from the years 2020 and 2040 and examined 
the area predicted, with at least 80 percent probability, to be 
urbanized. Our assessment was both quantitative, calculating the area 
within the 5-km buffer surrounding each population that was urbanized 
at each time point, and qualitative, inspecting the distribution of 
urbanization and major roads within that area (e.g., is the 
urbanization concentrated to one side of the population or completely 
surrounding it?). With this quantitative and qualitative assessment, we 
categorized populations as having either a low risk or a high risk of 
development impacting the ability to manage the population.
    These two aspects of future management--(1) management resources 
and willingness of the entity to manage and (2) impacts of surrounding 
development on management--interacted in our future scenarios in the 
following way: with decreases in management effort (compared to 
management for stable populations), population resiliency decreased one 
level. With management for stability, population resiliency stayed the 
same as the current condition resiliency when there was low risk of 
development impacts; but where there was a high risk, resiliency 
decreased one level, reflecting that management will be more 
challenging with higher risk from development. With increases in 
management effort, population resiliency increased when there was low 
risk of development impacts, but stayed the same when there was a high 
risk; the increased management effort canceled out the increased risk 
caused by development.

Future Condition--Future Scenarios

Status Quo

    Under the Status Quo scenario, no new protected areas were acquired 
and no new populations were introduced. Management efforts for all 
populations were maintained at current levels, assuming that the 
ability to manage would not be hampered by funding or political issues, 
climate change, or other factors. As discussed above, currently there 
are 30 known extant populations, natural and introduced, occurring in 5 
counties (Hardee, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas). Of 
these, 25 populations occur entirely or mostly on 22 protected sites, 
``protected'' referring to a site that was acquired in fee simple and 
placed into long-term conservation by a nongovernmental, local, State, 
or Federal entity, or a conservation easement or other binding land 
agreement by the site owner that shows a commitment to its conservation 
in perpetuity, and this scenario assumes that that commitment will be 
honored. Of the introductions since 2008, all had reached sizes >1,000 
plants except for the populations at Duette Preserve (2 populations, 
North and South).

Pessimistic

    Under the Pessimistic scenario, management effort on all 
populations decreased, presumably as an effect of a wide-scale change 
in priorities or resources, resulting in a drop in resiliency scores 
across the board. Additionally, based on uncertainty in whether 
populations on non-protected lands would continue to be managed in a 
way that is compatible with continued Florida golden aster persistence, 
in this scenario all populations on non-protected lands were assumed to 
be lost due to presumed land use or management change. As with the 
Status

[[Page 33188]]

Quo scenario, no new protected areas were acquired, and no new 
populations were introduced.

Targeted Conservation

    Under the Targeted Conservation scenario, populations with high and 
very high resiliency were managed to maintain their rank; in cases 
where populations had a high risk of development limiting the ability 
to manage, this involved an increase in management effort compared to 
what would be needed to maintain the same level of resiliency for a 
population with a low risk of development impacts. Populations with 
currently moderate resiliency on protected lands received management 
effort increases to either move them into the high-resiliency class 
(low risk from development) or maintain moderate resiliency (high risk 
from development). Conservation resources were steered towards 
maintaining and growing these larger populations, and not as much 
towards rescuing populations that currently have low resiliency. 
Additionally, five new sites were selected across the species' range in 
which to introduce new populations, thus improving species redundancy.

Likelihood of Scenarios

    Of these three scenarios, the Status Quo scenario is the most 
likely to occur, although the Targeted Conservation scenario represents 
a likely future if both habitat-focused management (prescribed burning 
and mechanical or manual habitat management) by a variety of partners/
managing entities and species-specific conservation (captive 
propagation and introductions) are prioritized and well-funded. The 
Pessimistic scenario was unlikely; given that Florida golden aster 
populations span so many different ownerships, it is unlikely that all 
of the different managing entities will develop the land especially 
when there are other co-occurring threatened, endangered, and candidate 
species occupying the same habitat (e.g., Florida scrub-jay, Aphelocoma 
coerulescens; eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon couperi; gopher 
tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus). The Targeted Conservation scenario was 
not likely with current conservation resources, but could reflect a 
likely future if both habitat-focused management (e.g., prescribed 
burning) by a variety of partners/managing entities and species-
specific conservation (e.g., captive propagation and introductions) are 
prioritized and well-funded.

Future Resiliency

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

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

Future Redundancy and Representation

    Redundancy 20 years in the future was expected to decrease compared 
to current condition under the Status Quo and Pessimistic Scenarios. In 
all scenarios, the majority of highly and very highly resilient 
populations were found in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. All 
redundancy of highly resilient populations in Pinellas County and the 
Hardee and Highlands Counties cluster is lost under the Pessimistic 
scenario. In the Status Quo scenario, where drops in resiliency were 
due to development risks to management, no highly resilient populations 
remained in the heavily urbanized Pinellas County. Even in the Targeted 
Conservation Scenario, redundancy within Pinellas County did not 
improve, but both the number and distribution of highly resilient 
populations in the other two clusters did improve.
    As in the Current Condition section of this preamble, we did not 
assess representation in the future due to a present lack of 
information needed to delineate representative units.

Recovery Criteria

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans must, to the 
maximum extent practicable, include ``objective, measurable criteria 
which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with 
the provisions [of section 4 of the Act], that the species be removed 
from the list.''
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to 
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species 
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless 
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.

[[Page 33189]]

    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the 
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may 
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery 
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these 
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. 
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we 
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent 
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of 
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance 
provided in a recovery plan.
    The recovery plan for the Florida golden aster was issued by the 
Service on August 29, 1988. The primary objective of the recovery plan 
was to provide sufficient habitat for the Florida golden aster, both 
through protection of the sites and proper vegetation management. The 
plan called for establishment of new populations of the species. 
Reclassification of this species to threatened could be considered if 
10 geographically distinct populations were established in its 3 native 
counties. Delisting could be considered if 20 such populations were 
secured (USFWS 1988, p. 3). Currently, Florida golden aster occurs in 
30 geographically distinct populations across 5 counties, and 18 of 
these populations are high or very high resiliency, as consistent with 
delisting criteria (see Table 2 in discussion above).

Determination of Florida Golden Aster Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a 
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and a threatened species as a 
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' For a more detailed discussion on the factors considered when 
determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered 
species or a threatened species and our analysis on how we determine 
the foreseeable future in making these decisions, please see Analytical 
Framework, above.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under section 4(a)(1) factors, we find 
that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat (Factor A), which was the basis for listing 
the species, is no longer a threat. At the time of listing, Florida 
golden aster was thought to persist only in Hillsborough County. Now, 
the species is known to occur in four additional counties: Hardee, 
Highlands, Mantee, and Pinellas Counties. While destruction and 
modification of habitat is still the primary threat, its magnitude has 
been greatly reduced since listing. Further, under the recovery plan 
for the species, delisting could be considered if 20 populations were 
secured. The number of known extant populations (NatureServe 2004) has 
increased from 9 (1986) to 30 (2017) as a result of additional surveys, 
habitat restoration, and outplanting within the historical range of the 
species. Of those 30 populations, 25 are located on protected 
conservation lands, 22 of which have been determined to have at least 
moderate resiliency. We expect current levels of management to continue 
on these conservation lands at these locations and anticipate the 
number of individuals within the populations to increase. Thus, after 
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Florida 
golden aster no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered 
species.
    For the determination of whether the species is likely be become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, 
and thus meet the definition of a threatened species, we considered the 
``foreseeable future'' as 20 years into the future under the three 
hypothetical future scenarios. Under all three scenarios evaluated, 
Florida golden aster is expected to continue to persist across its 
currently known range. Under the status quo scenario, which is also the 
most likely to occur, 12 populations are projected to be high/very high 
resiliency and 11 moderate--across all 3 geographic clusters, as 
habitat modification is no longer a threat for the populations on 
protected lands and current management of those lands is expected to 
continue. Four populations (3 natural and 1 introduced), currently in 
low condition are projected to become extirpated. Even under the 
Pessimistic scenario, which is least likely to occur, 7 populations are 
projected to be in high condition and 11 in moderate condition, all on 
protected lands with conservation management expected to continue at 
some level. Given that the majority of populations projected to remain 
extant, and with at least moderate resiliency, at the end of the 
projection period are on protected lands managed for scrub habitat, it 
is unlikely the species will become endangered in the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Because we have determined that the species is not in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we will consider whether there are any 
significant portions of its range in which the species is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future--that is, 
whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) 
the portion is significant; and, (2) the species is in danger of 
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that 
portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to 
address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. 
Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative 
answer with respect to the first question for a certain portion of the 
species' range, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that 
portion of the species' range.
    For Florida golden aster, we chose to evaluate the status question 
(i.e., identifying portions where Florida golden aster may be in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future) first. 
We considered whether the threats are geographically concentrated in 
any portion of the species' range at a biologically meaningful scale 
now or in the foreseeable future. We examined the following threats: 
Development and climate change, including cumulative effects. 
Currently, there are 30 known extant Florida golden aster populations 
occurring in 5 counties (Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas, Highlands, 
and Hardee Counties) with 25 of these populations occurring on 
conservation lands (Federal, State, and conservation

[[Page 33190]]

easements). Climate change, as discussed above, is primarily acting 
upon the species across its range, except for sea level rise, which 
would only potentially affect one population at Fort De Soto County 
Park in Pinellas County. As this would potentially impact just a single 
population out of 30 populations, we do not consider this concentration 
of threats to be at a biologically meaningful scale.
    Although development is currently concentrated in Pinellas County, 
that activity would negatively impact in the foreseeable future only 
five populations, which occur on private lands or along roadways or 
railroad lines. However, two of these populations have high and 
moderate resiliency (the remaining three populations have low 
resiliency), and this pattern will continue in the future. The Pinellas 
County populations are currently in low condition, and some may become 
extirpated in the foreseeable future due to development. Therefore, our 
examination leads us to find that there is substantial information that 
the Pinellas County populations may become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future.
    We then proceeded to consider whether this portion of the range 
(i.e., the Pinellas County populations) is significant. For the 
purposes of this analysis, the Service is considering significant 
portions of the range by applying any reasonable definition of 
``significant.'' We assessed whether any portions of the range may be 
biologically meaningful in terms of the resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation of the entity being evaluated. This approach is 
consistent with the Act, our implementing regulations, our policies, 
and case law.
    Currently, the Pinellas County populations are introduced 
populations and represent a small portion (less than 10 percent based 
on current extant populations) of the species' range. Further, these 
populations were all introduced after listing (i.e., are not naturally 
occurring populations) and are not contributing much to the viability 
of the species. If these populations become extirpated, the Florida 
golden aster would lose some redundancy, but the loss of this portion 
of the species' range would still leave sufficient resiliency 
(populations with moderate to high resiliency), redundancy, and 
representation in the remainder of the species' range such that it 
would not notably reduce overall viability of the species. Therefore, 
these populations do not represent a significant portion of the 
species' range.
    We conclude that the Florida golden aster is not in danger of 
extinction nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a 
significant portion of its range. This approach is consistent with the 
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 
16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 
2017).

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial data 
available indicates that Florida golden aster is not in danger of 
extinction nor likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, 
we find that Florida golden aster does not meet the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species, and we propose to remove Florida 
golden aster from the List.

Effects of This Proposed Rule

    This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to 
remove Florida golden aster from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided 
by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer 
apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to 
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect Florida golden 
aster. There is no critical habitat designated for this species.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor for not less than 
5 years the status of all species that are delisted due. Post-delisting 
monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a 
species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of 
extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The 
primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status 
does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to 
halt the decline so that proposing it as a threatened or endangered 
species is not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring 
period, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be 
reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if 
appropriate, emergency listing. At the conclusion of the monitoring 
period, we will review all available information to determine if re-
listing, the continuation of monitoring, or the termination of 
monitoring is appropriate.
    Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with 
the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However, 
we remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, 
therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also 
seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume 
responsibilities for the species' conservation after delisting.
    Concurrent with this proposed delisting rule, we announce the draft 
PDM plan's availability for public review at https://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071. We seek information, data, and 
comments from the public regarding Florida golden aster and the PDM 
plan. We are also seeking peer review of the draft PDM plan 
concurrently with this comment period. We anticipate finalizing the PDM 
plan, considering all public and peer review comments, prior to making 
a final determination on the proposed delisting rule.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Proposed Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all proposed rules in 
plain language. This means that each proposed rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help 
revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

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

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act need not be prepared in connection with 
determining and implementing a species' listing status under the

[[Page 33191]]

Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071.

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the 
Service's Southeastern Region Recovery Team and the North Florida 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


Sec.  17.12   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Chrysopsis 
floridana'' under ``Flowering Plants'' on the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants.

Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-12741 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P