Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15763 

telemarketing purposes (or on whose 

behalf such a call is made) receives a 

request from a residential telephone 

subscriber not to receive calls from that 

person or entity, the person or entity 

must record the request and place the 

subscriber’s name, if provided, and 

telephone number on the do-not-call list 

at the time the request is made. Persons 

or entities making such calls (or on 

whose behalf such calls are made) must 

honor a residential subscriber’s do-notcall request within a reasonable time 

from the date such request is made. This 

period may not exceed ten (10) business 

days from the receipt of such request. If 

such requests are recorded or 

maintained by a party other than the 

person or entity on whose behalf the 

call is made, the person or entity on 

whose behalf the call is made will be 

liable for any failures to honor the donot-call request. A person or entity 

making an artificial or prerecordedvoice telephone call pursuant to an 

exemption under paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) 

through (v) or any call for telemarketing 

purposes must obtain a consumer’s 

prior express permission to share or 

forward the consumer’s request not to 

be called to a party other than the 

person or entity on whose behalf a call 

is made or an affiliated entity. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–04587 Filed 3–4–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 22, 25, and 52 

[FAC 2024–03; FAR Case 2023–012; Item 

II; Docket No. FAR–2023–0012; Sequence 

No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AO62 

Federal Acquisition Regulation: Trade 

Agreements Thresholds 

In rule document 2024–2798 

beginning on page 13961 in the issue of 

Friday, February 23, 2024, make the 

following correction: 

52.212–5 [Corrected] 

On page 13964, in the first column, in 

the amendatory instruction 10.c., in the 

third line ‘‘(FEB 2025)’’ should read 

‘‘(FEB 2024)’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2024–02798 Filed 3–4–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071; 

FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 2223] 

RIN 1018–BE00 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of Chrysopsis 

floridana (Florida Golden Aster) From 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 

the Florida golden aster (Chrysopsis 

floridana), a short-lived perennial, from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants (List) due to recovery. 

Our review indicates that the threats to 

the species have been eliminated or 

reduced to the point that the species has 

recovered and no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Accordingly, the 

prohibitions and conservation measures 

provided by the Act will no longer 

apply to this species. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 4, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule, supporting 

documents used in preparing this rule, 

the post-delisting monitoring plan, and 

the comments we received on the June 

24, 2021, proposed rule are available at 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lourdes Mena, Division Manager, 

Florida Classification and Recovery, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida 

Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 

Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, FL 

32256; telephone 904–731–3336. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-of 

contact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants delisting if 

it no longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species (in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range) or threatened 

species (likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range). The Florida golden aster is 

listed as an endangered species, and we 

are delisting it. Delisting a species can 

only be completed by issuing a rule 

through the Administrative Procedure 

Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. This rule 

removes the Florida golden aster from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants based on the species’ 

recovery. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. The 

determination to delist a species must 

be based on an analysis of the same 

factors. 

Under the Act, we must review the 

status of all listed species at least once 

every 5 years. We must delist a species 

if we determine, based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data, that the species is neither an 

endangered species nor a threatened 

species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.11(e) identify three reasons why we 

might determine a species should be 

delisted: (1) The species is extinct, (2) 

the species does not meet the Act’s 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species, or (3) the listed 

entity does not meet the Act’s definition 

of a species. Here, we have determined 

that the Florida golden aster does not 

meet the definition of an endangered 

species or a threatened species; 

therefore, we are delisting it. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the proposed delisting 

rule (86 FR 33177) for the Florida 

golden aster published on June 24, 2021, 

for a detailed description of previous 

Federal actions concerning this species. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

Florida golden aster. The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
15764 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impact of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review in listing actions under the Act, 

we solicited independent scientific 

review of the information contained in 

the Florida golden aster SSA report. As 

discussed in the proposed rule, we sent 

the SSA report to six independent peer 

reviewers and received two responses. 

The peer reviews can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov. In 

preparing the proposed rule, we 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA 

report, which was the foundation for the 

proposed rule and this final rule. A 

summary for the peer review comments 

and our responses can be found in the 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations below. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In this final rule, we make no 

substantive changes to our June 24, 

2021, proposed rule. Minor, 

nonsubstantive changes have been made 

throughout this final rule. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

June 24, 2021 (86 FR 33177), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on our 

proposal to delist the Florida golden 

aster and the draft post-delisting 

monitoring (PDM) plan by August 23, 

2021. We also contacted appropriate 

Federal and State agencies, scientific 

experts and organizations, and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposal. A newspaper 

notice inviting public comments was 

published on June 30, 2021, in the 

Tampa Bay Times. We did not receive 

any requests for a public hearing. All 

substantive information provided 

during the comment period is addressed 

below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from two peer 

reviewers on the draft SSA report. The 

SSA report was also submitted to our 

Federal, State, and Tribal partners for 

scientific review. We received review 

from two partners. We reviewed all 

comments we received from the peer 

and partner reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the contents of the SSA report. The 

reviewers did not raise any substantive 

issues and provided only editorial 

comments that we incorporated into the 

final SSA report, which was the 

foundation for the proposed rule and 

this final rule. 

Public Comments 

We reviewed all public comments for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the species. Substantive 

comments we received during the 

comment period are addressed below. 

(1) Comment: Several commenters 

stated the species should not be delisted 

because populations are performing 

poorly. Multiple commenters pointed to 

the report titled, ‘‘Demographic Data 

Collection to Assess the Endangerment 

of Chrysopsis floridana 2020’’ (Peterson 

et al. 2020, entire) as supporting their 

position that the species should not be 

delisted. 

Our response: The report titled, 

‘‘Demographic Data Collection to Assess 

the Endangerment of Chrysopsis 

floridana 2020’’ (Peterson et al. 2020, 

entire) was funded by the Service to 

analyze a subset of known populations 

and did not look at all known 

populations. The intent of the effort was 

to collect data to provide additional 

information to supplement the 2018 

Florida golden aster SSA report. The 

results of Peterson et al. (2020, entire) 

reinforce our determination that the 

Florida golden aster no longer meets the 

Act’s definition of an endangered 

species or a threatened species. 

The 18 sites for the report were 

chosen specifically based on aster 

population size and habitat 

development risk, which results in 

increased future management 

constraints. Eleven of the selected 

populations were classified as low risk, 

and the remaining seven were classified 

as high risk, based on modeling 

projections in the SSA report (Service 

2018, p. 35). Of the 18 populations 

analyzed for the report, all populations 

were analyzed for demographic data, 

and 8 of those also had stage class (i.e., 

seedlings, vegetative plants, 

reproductive plants) data collected. Data 

were collected over a 3-year period, and 

annual survival and annual seedling 

survival were calculated each year. This 

approach was intended to provide an 

analysis of the variation in populations 

across the species’ range, looking at 

population resiliency and habitat 

management effectiveness. The analysis 

was a comparison of the populations’ 

metrics between the populations 

studied but is not comparable to the 

overall current condition of the species. 

Stage structure was used as an indirect 

measure of population health because 

fecundity data (seed production) were 

not collected, and full demographic 

models could not be assembled for the 

species. 

Annual survival was variable among 

populations and across years. Stage 

structure (‘‘small vegetative’’ plants, 

‘‘large vegetative’’ plants, and 

‘‘reproductive’’ plants) also varied over 

the 3-year period, with demographically 

healthy populations having more 

seedlings and the least healthy 

populations having more flowering 

plants. This variation would be 

expected based on the annual variations 

in climate conditions over time as well 

as the phenology of the species. 

Demographic results indicated moderate 

annual survival rates for 2017–2018 

(75.6 percent) and 2018–2019 (71.8 

percent). The annual survival rate for 

the 2017–2018 populations ranged from 

55–91 percent with similar rates of 42– 

89 percent in 2018–2019. The annual 

seedling survival (62.0 percent and 64.6 

percent, respectively) was slightly 

lower. The report concluded that at least 

6 populations might be considered 

healthy and self-sustaining, and it may 

be determined that the other 12 

populations (all on protected lands) will 

fare better in future years given 

increased management efforts (ideally 

fire), especially within wild 

populations. 

Variation in survival rates could be 

attributed to the time since the last fire, 

habitat management application, and/or 

age of the mature plant during the study 

period. Florida golden aster is a shortlived perennial (3–5 years) that flowers 

multiple years once reproductive. Not 

knowing the age of the plants being 

analyzed over the short timeframe in the 

randomly selected plots could have 

biased the results, as some of the plants 

may have been already at the end of 

their lifespan or not reproductive yet. In 

addition, consideration of early versus 

late lifespan productivity or species 

cycles (phenology), which are currently 

unknown, may be important factors 

influencing the analyzed data. The 

survival rate for this species is described 

as moderate; the annual survival rates 

for this aster are adequate for the species 

and the habitat it occupies (Peterson et 

al. 2020, entire). Although survival rates 

varied among introduced and wild 

populations and varied based on the 

habitat management status of the 

population, populations consistently 

showed seedling recruitment, which is 

an indication of recruitment in all 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15765 

populations regardless of health 

conditions. 

Based on the most current survey 

across the species’ range (2006–2018), 

30 known extant populations, natural 

and introduced, occur in five counties. 

Of these, 25 populations occur on 22 

protected and managed conservation 

lands. The post-delisting monitoring 

plan will utilize baseline data for the 

populations studied in the report to 

further assess long-term trends. 

(2) Comment: Some commenters 

stated the species should not be delisted 

because recovery criteria for delisting 

have not been achieved. 

Our response: Recovery plans provide 

a roadmap for us and our partners on 

methods of enhancing conservation and 

minimizing threats to listed species, as 

well as measureable criteria against 

which to evaluate progress towards 

recovery and assess the species’ likely 

future condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to 

delist a species is ultimately based on 

an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available and 

consideration of the standards listed in 

50 CFR 424.11(e) to determine whether 

a species is no longer an endangered 

species or a threatened species, 

regardless of whether that information 

differs from the recovery plan. 

According to the recovery plan there are 

many paths for this species to be 

recovered without all the criteria being 

fully met. The recovery plan states that 

one or more criteria may be exceeded 

while other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In this instance, we have 

determined that the threats to Florida 

golden aster are minimized sufficiently 

and that the species no longer meets the 

Act’s definition of an endangered 

species or a threatened species. 

(3) Comment: One commenter 

indicated delisting was premature 

because there was no data-driven 

management plan for the species. The 

commenter further stated that while 

short-term monitoring has suggested a 

role for fire in maintaining populations, 

critical data are lacking pertaining to the 

best management practices to maintain 

Florida golden aster habitat, specifically 

disturbance dynamics and the optimal 

fire frequency for managing 

populations. 

Our response: In our June 24, 2021, 

proposed rule (86 FR 33177), we 

announced the availability of a draft 

PDM plan for the Florida golden aster, 

and we requested comments on the draft 

PDM plan. We also solicited comments 

on the draft PDM plan from agencies 

that manage Florida golden aster on 

their conservation lands, as well as State 

and county partners that have been 

engaged in the species’ conservation. 

We received comments from both the 

Florida Forest Service and Hillsborough 

County’s Environmental Lands 

Acquisition and Protection Program, 

and their comments were incorporated 

into the final PDM plan. See Postdelisting Monitoring, below, for more 

information. 

The decision to revise the status of a 

species, or to delist a species, is 

ultimately based on an analysis of the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available to determine whether a species 

is no longer an endangered species or a 

threatened species. Complete 

understanding of specific data 

pertaining to best management practices 

for Florida golden aster such as 

disturbance dynamics or the fire return 

intervals for optimal survival and 

health, is not a requirement of the Act. 

Nevertheless, the general response of 

Florida golden aster to disturbance 

regimes is sufficiently understood to 

inform management. The delisting of 

Florida golden aster should not 

discourage continued research on the 

species and its habitat needs. Indeed, 

the PDM plan includes 

recommendations for this type of 

research. 

(4) Comment: One commenter noted 

that growing development surrounding 

Florida golden aster populations will 

further complicate fire management, 

which is important for maintaining 

suitable habitat. It will become 

increasingly difficult for many areas 

where Florida golden aster is present to 

be managed with fire, and there is little 

evidence that mechanical disturbance 

could serve as an effective surrogate for 

fire. 

Our response: The development 

pressures on native landscapes 

throughout peninsular Florida are 

challenging and will continue to persist 

indefinitely. Habitat management on 

conservation lands in the wildlandurban interface can experience various 

constraints. However, not all 

conservation lands with Florida golden 

aster populations are subject to these 

constraints, and development often does 

not preclude fire management; for 

example, the national wildlife refuges in 

Florida frequently conduct prescribed 

fires despite close proximity to 

developed areas. Additionally, various 

treatments and techniques to prepare 

fuel loads prior to prescribed fire 

application can also overcome many of 

these constraints, along with managing 

the area without the use of fire. New 

and innovative methods are constantly 

being developed and employed to 

accomplish the desired habitat 

conditions. Best management practices 

and sound management planning 

alleviates many of the obstacles land 

managers encounter when pursing 

optimal conditions in support of the 

targeted species. 

While the commenter stated that 

mechanical disturbance is not as 

effective as fire in maintaining habitat 

for the Florida golden aster, mechanical 

treatments can be effective, if deployed 

correctly. We note in the SSA report 

that in the absence of fire, habitat 

openness can be maintained with 

mowing, hand removal of trees and 

shrubs near plants, or other mechanical 

treatments. Populations have persisted 

along periodically mowed rights-of-way 

(e.g., underneath powerlines, along 

roads and railroads) for decades without 

a prescribed burn program (Service 

2018, p. 12). 

(5) Comment: One commenter stated 

that keeping the species listed will 

improve the Florida golden aster’s 

chances of recovery, adding that 

continued listing would provide 

support necessary to continue research 

and conservation work for the species. 

Our response: We agree that the 

protections of the Act have helped 

recover the Florida golden aster, such 

that it no longer meets the Act’s 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species. Currently, the vast 

majority of the known populations 

occur on protected and managed 

conservation lands and have at least 

moderate resiliency. Additionally, we 

expect habitat management for the 

species to continue, such that these 

populations will only increase, though 

this was not relied on for the delisting 

determination. The Florida golden aster, 

therefore, is recovered and no longer 

warrants the protections of the Act, now 

or in the foreseeable future. Retaining 

the species on the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants 

would be contrary to the direction of the 

Act and would continue to draw 

resources from other species that still 

need the protections of the Act. 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, ecology, and overall 

viability of the Florida golden aster is 

presented in the SSA report available on 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071. A 

summary of that information is 

presented here. 

Florida golden aster is endemic to 

xeric (very dry) uplands east and 

southeast of the Tampa Bay area of 

central Florida. The historical range of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
15766 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the Florida golden aster is thought to 

span parts of Hillsborough, Manatee, 

Pinellas, Highlands, and Hardee 

Counties, but the true extent of the 

historical range is uncertain because the 

ecosystems on which it occurs were 

rapidly converted to residential, 

commercial, and agricultural uses after 

European settlement of the region. 

Agriculture began in 1880, with grazing 

and production of citrus and row crops. 

Residential and commercial activity 

began around 1840, mainly in the 

Tampa Bay area and beach communities 

through the 1940s and 1950s, but 

suburban and rural areas started 

expanding in the 1960s and 1970s and 

that expansion has continued at a 

consistent rate. The species was first 

collected and described from a 

specimen in Manatee County in early 

1901, with subsequent collections in 

Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties in 

the 1920s. The earliest known Manatee 

County and Pinellas County populations 

occurred in coastal areas of Bradenton 

Beach and St. Petersburg Beach. 

However, these populations have since 

been extirpated. The last remaining 

natural population known to occur in 

Pinellas County was discovered in 1983; 

however, a housing development 

eliminated all available habitat by 1985. 

When the species was listed as 

endangered in 1986 (see 51 FR 17974; 

May 16, 1986), nine known extant 

populations of the species occurred in 

five locations, all coastal, in 

southeastern Hillsborough County 

(Wunderlin et al. 1981, entire). Since 

the listing of the species, increased 

survey efforts have resulted in the 

discovery of additional populations, 

including occurrences farther inland. 

Many of the newly discovered locations 

have since been acquired as protected 

sites with active conservation 

management activities implemented to 

improve habitat conditions. As 

discussed below, introductions have 

occurred on conservation lands in 

Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and 

Pinellas Counties. It is not known 

whether these introduction sites were 

historically occupied by the Florida 

golden aster or, if so, how long ago they 

supported natural populations. 

Based on the most current surveys 

across the species’ range (2006–2018), 

30 known extant populations, natural 

and introduced, occur in 5 counties 

(Hardee—4 populations, Highlands—1 

population, Hillsborough—16 

populations, Manatee—5 populations, 

and Pinellas—4 populations; figure 1). 

Populations were delineated using a 

separation distance of 2 kilometers (km) 

between occurrences (see Current 

Condition, below, for more 

information). Of these, 25 populations 

occur entirely or mostly on 22 protected 

sites; a protected site is a site that has 

been acquired in fee simple and placed 

into long-term conservation, or that has 

a conservation easement or other 

binding land agreement by the site 

owner that shows a commitment to its 

conservation in perpetuity. In addition, 

all protected sites have a management 

agreement or plan both developed and 

implemented. None of the lands 

occupied by the Florida golden aster are 

federally owned or managed but rather 

they are owned and managed by a State, 

local, or nongovernmental entity. The 

remaining five extant populations occur 

on private lands or along roadways or 

railroad lines. 

The most recent surveys (occurring 

between 2006 and 2018) show that just 

over half of the Florida golden aster 

individuals occur in nine introduced 

populations at eight sites. The earliest 

introductions, a total of 10, were 

undertaken in 1986; three of those 

populations remain extant in Hardee 

and Manatee Counties, while seven 

other introductions in Pinellas and 

Hillsborough Counties failed. 

Introductions were again initiated 

during 2008–2013, when Bok Tower 

Gardens introduced six additional 

populations in Hardee, Manatee, and 

Pinellas Counties, containing 24,825 

plants (as of the most recent censuses, 

with about 12,000 in one population). 

Four of the six populations contain 

more than 1,000 plants; the remaining 

two populations (North and South 

Duette Preserve) are the most recently 

introduced populations (2013), have 

been growing rapidly, and are 

surrounded by ample habitat and little 

to no development, so they will also 

reach sizes comparable to the other 

introduced populations. 

According to the most recent surveys, 

approximately 50,000 individuals exist 

with more than 90 percent occurring in 

the 25 populations located on protected 

lands. Although this estimate is the best 

available information, it gives only an 

approximation of the true current 

abundance of the Florida golden aster 

because surveys are not conducted 

every year and are conducted for 

different objectives. Moreover, 

population sizes fluctuate annually. 

Twelve of the 30 populations had more 

than 1,000 individual plants present 

when last observed. We note that a 56- 

km gap occurs between the easternmost 

naturally occurring population in 

Manatee County and the nearest 

naturally occurring population in 

Hardee County, and it is not presently 

known whether this gap is due to the 

lack of suitable habitat, lack of 

observation, a long-distance dispersal 

event, or fragmentation of a formerly 

continuous distribution. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15767 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Recovery Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 

recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, that the species be 

removed from listed status. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species 

or to delist a species is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all the criteria in a recovery plan being 

fully met. For example, one or more 

criteria may be exceeded while other 

criteria may not yet be accomplished. In 

that instance, we may determine that 

the threats are minimized sufficiently 

and that the species is robust enough 

that it no longer meets the Act’s 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species. In other cases, we 

may discover new recovery 

opportunities after having finalized the 

recovery plan. Parties seeking to 

conserve the species may use these 

opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

We issued the recovery plan for the 

Florida golden aster on August 29, 1988. 

The primary objective of the recovery 

plan was to provide sufficient habitat 

for the Florida golden aster, both 

through protection of the sites and 

proper vegetation management. The 

recovery plan calls for establishment of 

new populations of the species. The 

recovery plan states that reclassification 

of this species to threatened could be 

considered if 10 geographically distinct 

populations are established in its three 

native counties, and delisting could be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER05MR24.000</GPH>

N 

A 

-c::::--c::::==--Kffometem 

0 50 100 200 300 400 

FIGURE 1. The five Florida counties where the Florida golden aster occurs as of2017 are 

highlighted in gray, with Hillsborough County shaded darker gray. At the time of listing in 1986, 

populations of the Florida golden aster were only known to occur in Hillsborough Country. 
15768 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

considered if 20 such populations are 

secured (USFWS 1988, p. 3). Currently, 

Florida golden aster occurs in 30 

geographically distinct populations 

across five counties, 25 are on protected 

lands, and 18 of these populations have 

high or very high resiliency (see table 2), 

which is consistent with the recovery 

plan’s delisting criterion. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

Title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. In 2019, jointly with 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

the Service issued a final rule that 

revised the regulations in 50 CFR part 

424 regarding how we add, remove, and 

reclassify endangered and threatened 

species and the criteria for designating 

listed species’ critical habitat (84 FR 

45020; August 27, 2019). On the same 

day, we issued a final rule that revised 

50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 (84 FR 44753; 

hereinafter, ‘‘the 20194(d) rule’’) and 

ended the ‘‘blanket rule’’ option for 

application of section 9 prohibitions to 

species newly listed as threatened after 

the effective date ofthose regulatory 

revisions (September 26, 2019). Blanket 

rules had extended the majority of the 

protections (all of the prohibitions that 

apply to endangered species under 

section 9 and additional exceptions to 

the prohibitions) to threatened species, 

unless we issued an alternative rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act for a 

particular species (i.e., a species-specific 

4(d) rule). The blanket rule protections 

continued to apply to threatened species 

that were listed prior to September 26, 

2019, without an associated speciesspecific rule. Under the 2019 4(d) rule, 

the only way to apply protections to a 

species newly listed as threatened is 

forus to issue a species-specific rule 

settingout the protective regulations that 

are appropriate for that species. Our 

analysis for this decision applied our 

current regulations, portions of which 

were last revised in 2019. Given that we 

proposed further revisions to these 

regulations on June 22, 2023 (88 FR 

40742; 88 FR 40764), we have also 

undertaken an analysis of whether the 

decision would be different if we were 

to apply those proposed revisions. We 

concluded that the decision would have 

been the same if we had applied the 

proposed 2023 regulations. The analyses 

under both the regulations currently in 

effect and the regulations after 

incorporating the June 22, 2023, 

proposed revisions are included in our 

decision file. 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as a species that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and a threatened 

species as a species that is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

any species is an endangered species or 

a threatened species because of any of 

the following factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could 

influence a species’ continued 

existence. In evaluating these actions 

and conditions, we look for those that 

may have a negative effect on 

individuals of the species, as well as 

other actions or conditions that may 

ameliorate any negative effects or may 

have positive effects. The determination 

to delist a species must be based on an 

analysis of the same five factors. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species. In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—considering those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all the 

threats on the species. We also consider 

the cumulative effect of the threats 

considering those actions and 

conditions that will have positive effects 

on the species, such as any existing 

regulatory mechanisms or conservation 

efforts. The Secretary determines 

whether the species meets the definition 

of an endangered species or a threatened 

species only after conducting this 

cumulative analysis and describing the 

expected effect on the species now and 

in the foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15769 

To assess Florida golden aster 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, 

resiliency is the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

redundancy is the ability of the species 

to withstand catastrophic events (for 

example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation is the ability 

of the species to adapt to both near-term 

and long-term changes in its physical 

and biological environment (for 

example, climate changes, pathogen). In 

general, species viability will increase 

with increases in resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Smith 

et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these 

principles, we identified the species’ 

ecological requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report; the full SSA report can be found 

at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

Summary of SSA Analysis 

For a species to be viable there must 

be adequate redundancy (suitable 

number, distribution, and connectivity 

to allow the species to withstand 

catastrophic events), representation 

(genetic and environmental diversity to 

allow the species to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions), and 

resiliency (ability of a species to 

withstand unpredictable disturbance). 

Resiliency for Florida golden aster 

improves with maintained open habitat. 

Lambert and Menges (1996, pp. 121– 

137) recommend prescribed burning 

that mimics the historic burn pattern 

(frequent low-intensity fires in sandhill, 

less frequent burns in scrub, with fires 

primarily in late spring and summer) 

and periodic mechanical disturbance of 

the ground cover during late winter or 

early spring when seeds are dispersed. 

In the absence of fire, habitat openness 

can be maintained with mowing, hand 

removal of trees and shrubs near plants, 

or other mechanical treatments; 

populations have persisted along 

periodically mowed rights-of-way (e.g., 

underneath powerlines, along roads and 

railroads) for decades without a 

prescribed burn program. Populations 

must be suitably large and connected to 

provide a reservoir of individuals for 

cross-pollination, as plants will not selffertilize, and to maintain levels of 

genetic diversity high enough to prevent 

harmful consequences from inbreeding 

depression and genetic drift (Ellstrand 

and Elam 1993, pp. 217–242). 

Redundancy improves with increasing 

numbers of populations, and 

connectivity (either natural or humanfacilitated) allows connected 

populations to ‘‘rescue’’ each other after 

catastrophes. Representation improves 

with increased genetic diversity and/or 

environmental conditions within and 

among populations. 

Viability of the Florida golden aster 

has been and will continue to be 

impacted both negatively and positively 

by anthropogenic and natural 

influences. Historically, the primary 

threats to the Florida golden aster were 

habitat loss (resulting from human 

development) and habitat degradation 

due to lack of adequate habitat 

management. As threats to habitat have 

been alleviated via habitat protection 

and management, recovery has been 

further bolstered by captive propagation 

followed by introduction into 

unoccupied sites. 

Analysis of Threat Factors 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

The main threat to this species at the 

time of listing was the destruction and 

modification of habitat. Habitat 

destruction, modification, and 

degradation on private lands and habitat 

degradation from lack of adequate 

habitat management on public lands 

remain the primary risk factor to the 

species. The five populations occurring 

on private lands remain subject to 

adverse human activity including 

dumping, off-road recreational vehicles 

use, and land clearing. However, these 

activities are no longer threats to the 25 

populations on protected conservation 

lands because of controlled access and 

restricted use. 

Lack of management, especially the 

absence of periodic fire, historically led 

to habitat degradation throughout the 

species’ range. The Florida golden aster 

occurs in open, sandy patches that 

historically were maintained by fire 

under natural conditions. Without 

naturally ignited fires or prescribed fire 

applications, the habitat becomes 

overgrown, resulting in unfavorable 

conditions for the species’ persistence. 

Ideal habitat management is generally 

regarded as prescribed burning that 

mimics the historical burn patterns 

(frequent low-intensity fires in sandhill, 

less frequent burns in scrub, with fires 

primarily in late spring and summer) 

and periodic mechanical disturbance of 

the ground cover during late winter or 

early spring when seeds are dispersed 

(Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121– 

137). Initial burning to restore the 

openness of degraded habitat involves 

frequent intense fires, after which 

burning can be less intense and less 

frequent to simply maintain the habitat. 

Failing to maintain open scrub habitat 

can disrupt the Florida golden aster’s 

reproduction, survival, and dispersal 

(Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121– 

137). 

As with habitat destruction and 

modification, this threat from lack of 

management remains a concern mainly 

on private, non-conservation lands. 

Populations that occur on conservation 

lands are often being managed to 

maintain optimal open scrub habitat. 

However, budget constraints, 

manageability, conflicting priorities, 

and other factors (weather, lack of 

equipment, staff shortages, etc.) may 

preclude proper management activities 

even on conservation lands. 

Additionally, proximity to urbanized 

areas can limit the number of days 

available for prescribed burns, and 

urbanization in the Tampa Bay area is 

increasing rapidly (Xian et al. 2005, pp. 

920–928). To be optimal, burn days 

must have wind speeds and wind 

directions that do not unduly burden 

urbanized areas with smoke. For this 

reason, large rural tracts of habitat are 

easier to burn than small tracts tucked 

into developed areas. Increasing 

commercial and residential 

development could lead to further 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
15770 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

decreases in the ability to conduct 

prescribed burning in the future, which 

may or may not be replaced with 

adequate habitat management by other 

means (e.g., mowing) that are more 

expensive than using fire. The type of 

development also factors into 

management ability and flexibility, with 

major roads, schools, hospitals, 

retirement homes (places with 

vulnerable populations) weighing more 

heavily on the decision of if/when to 

burn than other types of development 

(Camposano 2018, pers. comm.). 

Since the time of listing, conservation 

efforts for the Florida golden aster and 

other scrub habitat species have reduced 

the threat of habitat destruction, 

modification, and degradation. These 

conservation efforts include acquiring 

properties where the species naturally 

occurs, introducing populations on 

conservation lands, and conducting 

habitat management on conservation 

lands (e.g., prescribed burning). While 

habitat destruction and modification 

may still occur on private lands, 83 

percent of the sites are on public 

conservation lands and, therefore, for 

the most part, are adequately managed 

and protected. Land acquisitions and 

introductions have increased the 

number of established populations 

within the historical range and have 

resulted in the expansion of the species’ 

known range. Further, although the 

species will be delisted under the Act 

on the effective date of this rule (see 

DATES, above), the Florida golden aster 

will remain listed as threatened under 

State laws. Based on the best available 

information, we conclude that resources 

for necessary management activities on 

conservation lands will continue. 

Disease or Predation 

At the time of listing, grazing by 

domestic livestock was identified as a 

stressor because the species’ 

populations were on private lands and 

many of the properties were in cattle 

production. However, at present, the 25 

populations on conservation lands are 

not subject to any agriculture practices. 

No cattle grazing occurs on any of these 

properties. Therefore, we no longer 

consider grazing to be a threat. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The Florida Administrative Code 

(FAC) chapter 5B–40 (Preservation of 

Native Flora of Florida) provides the 

Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services limited authority to 

protect plants on State and private lands 

(primarily from the standpoint of illegal 

harvest). Florida golden aster is listed as 

an endangered plant under this statute, 

which requires anyone wishing to 

willfully harvest, collect, pick, remove, 

injure, or destroy any plant listed as 

endangered growing on the private land 

of another, or on any public land or 

water, to obtain the written permission 

of the owner of the land or water or his 

legal representative (FAC 5B– 

40.003(1)(a)). A permit is also required 

to transport for the purpose of sale, 

selling, or offering for sale any plant 

contained on the State’s endangered 

plant list that is harvested from such 

person’s own property (FAC 5B– 

40.003(1)(c)). The delisting of the 

Florida golden aster under the Act will 

not affect this State listing. 

Several sites, consisting of thousands 

of plants, are now under county and 

State protection. Specifically, 

Hillsborough County has purchased 

considerable acreage through the 

Endangered Land Acquisition and 

Protection Program (ELAPP) that 

contains several large populations of 

Florida golden aster. In 1987, 

Hillsborough County passed the 

Environmentally Sensitive Lands 

Ordinance that established the 

foundation for ELAPP. This applies to 

nine populations on six sites in 

Hillsborough County. In 1990, this 

ordinance was amended and approved 

for another 20 years by increasing 

county taxes to allow additional funds 

to acquire conservation lands. In 

November 2008, voters approved the 

issuance of up to $200 million in bonds 

for additional purchases. 

ELAPP has worked with the 

Southwest Florida Water Management 

District and Florida Forever to jointly 

fund the acquisition of lands. Some of 

this money is also used for ELAPP to 

actively manage their properties to 

benefit Florida golden aster. Therefore, 

we find that the existing regulatory 

mechanisms will provide sufficient 

protections to the species and habitat 

after delisting, especially on public 

lands with ordinance protection. 

Currently, 27 sites where the species 

occurs are subject to Florida State law. 

These State and local protections have 

proven effective. For example, 

prescribed burning will continue 

through the ELAPP. Although we 

acknowledge that this could change in 

the future, we do not anticipate any 

future changes to the implementation of 

these programs at this time. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Our analyses under the Act include 

consideration of ongoing and projected 

changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ 

and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). A recent compilation of 

climate change and its effects is 

available from reports of the IPCC (IPCC 

2014, entire). The term ‘‘climate 

change’’ thus refers to a change in the 

mean or variability of one or more 

measures of climate (e.g., temperature or 

precipitation) that persists for an 

extended period, typically decades or 

longer, whether the change is due to 

natural variability, human activity, or 

both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types 

of changes in climate can have direct or 

indirect effects on species. These effects 

may be positive, neutral, or negative and 

they may change over time, depending 

on the species and other relevant 

considerations, such as the effects of 

interactions of climate with other 

variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 

(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our 

analyses, we use our expert judgment to 

weigh relevant information, including 

uncertainty, in our consideration of 

various aspects of climate change. 

The IPCC concluded that the climate 

system is warming (Pachauri et al. 2014, 

entire). Effects associated with changes 

in climate have been observed, 

including changes in arctic 

temperatures and ice, widespread 

changes in precipitation amounts, ocean 

salinity, and wind patterns and aspects 

of extreme weather including droughts, 

heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the 

intensity of tropical cyclones (Pachauri 

et al. 2014, entire). Species that are 

dependent on specialized habitat types, 

limited in distribution, or at the extreme 

periphery of their range may be most 

susceptible to the impacts of climate 

change (Byers and Norris 2011, entire; 

Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193–210). 

However, while continued change is 

certain, the magnitude and rate of 

change is unknown in many cases and 

could be affected by many factors (e.g., 

weather circulation patterns). 

According to the IPCC, most plant 

species cannot naturally shift their 

geographical ranges sufficiently fast to 

keep up with current and high projected 

rates of climate change on most 

landscapes (IPCC 2014, p. 13). Plant 

species with restricted ranges may 

experience population declines as a 

result of the effects of climate change. 

The concept of changing climate can be 

meaningfully assessed both by looking 

into the future and reviewing past 

changes. 

Using the National Climate Change 

Viewer and using greenhouse gas 

emission scenario (representative 

concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5), we 

calculated projected annual mean 

changes from 1981–2010 to those 

projected for 2025–2049 for maximum 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15771 

temperature, precipitation, soil storage, 

and evaporative deficit in all counties 

where Florida golden aster occurs 

(Adler and Hostetler 2017, entire). We 

also calculated projected annual mean 

changes for a more conservative 

greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP 

4.5) using the same timeframes for 

maximum temperature, precipitation, 

soil storage, and evaporative deficit in 

all counties where Florida golden aster 

occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, 

entire). Based on these results, all 5 

counties within the range of Florida 

golden aster will be subjected to higher 

temperatures (annual mean increase of 

2.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (RCP 4.5) or 

2.9 °F (RCP 8.5)) and slightly higher 

precipitation (annual mean increase of 

0.1 inch per month (RCP 4.5) or 0.2 inch 

per month (RCP 8.5)) in the period of 

2025–2049 relative to the period of 

1981–2010. 

Additionally, climate change will 

likely influence Florida golden aster 

into the future by affecting habitat 

suitability and the ability to manage 

habitat with prescribed fire. Species that 

are dependent on specialized habitat 

types, limited in distribution (e.g., 

Florida golden aster), or at the extreme 

periphery of their range may be most 

susceptible to the impacts of climate 

change (Byers and Norris 2011, entire; 

Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193–210). There 

is evidence that some terrestrial plant 

populations have been able to adapt and 

respond to changing climatic conditions 

(Franks et al. 2014, pp. 123–139). Both 

plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf 

size or phenology) and evolutionary 

(shift in allelic frequencies) responses to 

changes in climate have been detected. 

Given enough time, plants can alter 

their ranges, resulting in range shifts, 

reductions, or increases (Kelly and 

Goulden 2008, pp. 11823–11826; Loarie 

et al. 2008, p. 2502). 

The climate in the southeastern 

United States has warmed about 2 °F 

from a cool period in the 1960s and 

1970s and is expected to continue to 

rise (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396–417). 

Projections for future precipitation 

trends in the Southeast are less certain 

than those for temperature, but suggest 

that overall annual precipitation will 

decrease, and that tropical storms will 

occur less frequently, but with more 

force (e.g., more category 4 and 5 

hurricanes) than historical averages 

(Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396–417). 

Climatic changes, including sea level 

rise (SLR) and shifts in seasonal 

precipitation, temperature, and storm 

cycles, are projected to impact the 

southeastern United States over the next 

century. Under both lower and higher 

emissions scenarios, temperatures are 

expected to increase (Carter et al. 2018, 

pp. 751–752), and climate change is 

expected to intensify the hydrologic 

cycle and increase the frequency and 

severity of extreme events like drought 

and heavy rainfall (Carter et al. 2018, p. 

775). Increases in evaporation of 

moisture from soils and loss of water by 

plants in response to warmer 

temperatures are expected to contribute 

to increased frequency, duration, and 

intensity of droughts. Local sea level 

rise impacts depend not only on how 

much the ocean level itself is increasing, 

but also on land subsidence and/or 

changes in offshore currents (Carter et 

al. 2014, pp. 396–417), and impacts on 

terrestrial ecosystems can occur via 

submergence of habitat during storm 

surges or permanently, saltwater 

intrusion into the water table, and 

erosion. Of the current populations of 

the Florida golden aster, only one (Fort 

De Soto County Park, Pinellas County) 

is directly vulnerable to inundation 

from 0.3 m of sea level rise, a reasonable 

estimate of sea level rise by 2050. Hotter 

and drier conditions in the future could 

lead to fewer days with optimal 

conditions for prescribed burning, 

which could lead to reduced habitat 

quality if land managers are unable to 

make up for the lack of burning with 

adequate mechanical treatment. 

It is possible that there will be 

increases in the number of lightning 

strikes and sizes and severities of 

resulting fires, which could have a 

positive or negative effect on specific 

Florida golden aster populations. 

Hurricanes similarly could have 

positive or negative effects on the 

species. Prolonged flooding could harm 

populations, but the mechanical 

disturbance of trees being uprooted from 

flood events could improve habitat for 

colonizing species like the Florida 

golden aster (Menges and Johnson 2017, 

pers. comm.). 

Other potential climate change effects 

include changes in temperature and 

precipitation. Projections for future 

precipitation trends in the Southeast are 

less certain than those for temperature 

but suggest that overall annual 

precipitation will decrease. Hotter and 

drier conditions may complicate the 

ability to manage Florida golden aster 

with prescribed fires. Some terrestrial 

plant populations have been able to 

adapt and respond to changing climatic 

conditions (Franks et al. 2014, entire). 

Both plastic (phenotypic change such as 

leaf size or phenology) and evolutionary 

(shift in allelic frequencies) responses to 

changes in climate have been detected. 

Both can occur rapidly and often 

simultaneously (Franks et al. 2014, 

entire). However, relatively few studies 

are available that (1) directly examine 

plant responses over time, (2) clearly 

demonstrate adaptation or the causal 

climatic driver of these responses, or (3) 

use quantitative methods to distinguish 

plastic versus evolutionary responses 

(Franks et al. 2014, entire). 

As noted earlier, only one population 

(Fort De Soto County Park, Pinellas 

County) is directly vulnerable to 

inundation from 0.3 meters of sea level 

rise, a reasonable estimate of sea level 

rise by 2050. Hotter and drier conditions 

in the future could lead to fewer days 

with optimal conditions for prescribed 

burning, which could lead to reduced 

habitat quality if land managers are 

unable to make up for the lack of 

burning with adequate mechanical 

treatment. It is possible that there will 

be increases in the number of lightning 

strikes and sizes and severities of 

resulting wildfires, which could have a 

positive or negative effect on specific 

Florida golden aster populations. 

Hurricanes similarly could have 

positive or negative effects on the 

species. Prolonged flooding could harm 

populations, but the mechanical 

disturbance of trees being uprooted 

could improve habitat for colonizing 

species like Florida golden aster 

(Menges and Johnson 2017, pers. 

comm.). We have no additional 

information or data regarding effects of 

climate change with respect to Florida 

golden aster populations into the future; 

further research will be helpful to 

determine how this species responds 

directly to changes in temperature and 

water availability. However, from the 

known and forecasted information, we 

anticipate that effects to Florida golden 

aster from climate change will be 

limited and will not rise to the level of 

a threat. 

Other influences not discussed in 

detail here, either because they are not 

thought to be a major threat or there is 

little information available, include 

invasive plant species like cogongrass 

(Imperata cylindrica), and future genetic 

consequences of small and/or 

translocated populations. 

Synergistic Effects 

Many of the stressors discussed in 

this analysis could work in concert with 

each other and result in a cumulative 

adverse effect to Florida golden aster, 

e.g., one stressor may make the species 

more vulnerable to other threats. 

Synergistic interactions are possible 

between effects of climate change and 

effects of other threats, such as mowing, 

dumping, off-road recreational vehicle 

use, and land clearing. However, we 

currently do not have information to 

determine the likely effects of climate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
15772 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

change on interaction/competition 

between species, or on drought 

conditions. Uncertainty about how 

different plant species will respond 

under a changing climate makes 

projecting possible synergistic effects of 

climate change on Florida golden aster 

speculative. However, the increases 

documented in the number of 

populations since the species was listed 

do not indicate that cumulative effects 

of various activities and stressors are 

affecting the viability of the species at 

this time. Based on our analysis of 

future stressors, we do not anticipate 

that cumulative effects will affect the 

viability of the species in the foreseeable 

future. Likewise, climate change, as 

discussed above, with hotter and drier 

conditions can add additional 

complexity to future prescribed burns. 

Available habitat in those tracts that are 

easier to burn, or that can be managed 

by other methods (e.g., mechanical 

manipulation), will be sufficient. 

Similarly, most of the potential stressors 

we identified either have not occurred 

to the extent originally anticipated at 

the time of listing or are adequately 

managed as described above. In 

addition, we do not anticipate 

significant stressors to increase on 

publicly owned lands or lands that are 

managed for the species. 

Current Condition 

Delineating Populations 

For the SSA, we delineated 

populations using a 2-km separation 

distance rule based on species expert 

opinion, resulting in 30 populations 

across five counties. This strategy differs 

from the 1-km separation distance rule 

that was used in the most recent 5-year 

review, which was based on 

NatureServe’s default criteria for 

defining plant populations (NatureServe 

2004, entire). The team of species 

experts providing input on the SSA 

suspected that 1 km is likely an 

underestimate of the distance that gene 

flow can regularly occur via pollination. 

While the exact insect pollinators of the 

Florida golden aster are not known, 

studies on multiple bee species (major 

plant and Chrysopsis pollinators) 

demonstrate foraging distances that 

regularly exceed 1 km (Greenleaf et al. 

2007, pp. 289–296; Hagler et al. 2011, p. 

144). 

Current Resiliency 

Resiliency refers to the ability of 

populations to withstand stochastic 

events, whether demographic, 

environmental, or anthropogenic. 

Populations with low resiliency are 

highly vulnerable to stochastic events 

and face a high risk of extirpation 

within the next few decades. 

Populations with moderate resiliency 

are less likely to be extirpated within 

the next few decades, but require 

additional growth (with help of regular 

habitat management and/or restoration) 

to become more self-sustaining and 

resilient to stochastic events. 

Populations with high resiliency are 

unlikely to be extirpated within the next 

30 years in the absence of catastrophes 

or significant declines in the quality of 

habitat management. Populations with 

very high resiliency are the most robust 

and resistant to stochastic fluctuations. 

In the SSA, we assessed resiliency for 

each population using three factors: (1) 

population size, (2) habitat protection, 

and (3) area of available habitat. Other 

factors were considered that likely 

contribute to population resiliency, but 

data were not available to assess them 

over all or most of the populations 

including certain explicit measures of 

habitat quality, fire management, 

existence of land management plans, 

and population trends. While some past 

survey data are available for many 

populations, species experts did not feel 

comfortable comparing population 

counts across time periods. In many 

cases, differences in population sizes 

were likely not a result of increasing 

populations, but rather of differences in 

survey methodology, number of 

surveyors, and/or areas searched (e.g., 

surveyors who were more likely to visit 

known patches and not find new 

patches; alternately, a bias toward larger 

counts over time as old patches are 

revisited and additional patches are 

found). Nevertheless, we are confident 

that these population data demonstrate 

resiliency of the species. Regardless, 

this species has not been extensively 

studied; therefore, there was some 

uncertainty in the SSA in precisely how 

these factors influenced Florida golden 

aster population resiliency. 

Population Size 

Population size is both a direct 

contributor to resiliency and an indirect 

indicator of resiliency. Small 

populations are more susceptible to 

demographic and environmental 

stochastic events than larger 

populations. Small populations are also 

more likely to suffer from decreased 

fitness because of low genetic diversity 

from inbreeding or genetic drift (Willi et 

al. 2005, pp. 2255–2265). For Florida 

golden aster, large populations are more 

buffered from the effects of prescribed 

burning or other disturbances, which 

are necessary to maintain open habitat 

but can temporarily reduce population 

sizes by killing plants. Indirectly, large 

population sizes are likely indicative of 

other conditions that contribute to 

population resiliency. For example, in 

the SSA, we did not have adequate data 

to assess habitat quality and the quality 

of management at all the Florida golden 

aster populations; therefore, we 

assumed large population sizes likely 

generally reflect good habitat quality 

and management (among other factors) 

compared to smaller populations, 

although this assumption may not hold 

in all cases. 

We categorized populations into 4 

size classes: fewer than 100 individuals, 

100–500 individuals, 501–1,000 

individuals, and more than 1,000 

individuals. Each population size class 

was associated with one of the following 

baseline resiliency classes, respectively: 

low, moderate, high, and very high 

(explained further below). 

We chose the population size 

threshold between high and very high 

resiliency of 1,000 individuals because 

it is the typical population size used to 

rank element occurrences as having 

‘‘excellent viability’’ and likely to 

persist for the next 20–30 years 

(NatureServe 2008, entire). This is a 

generic population size limit that was 

not specifically tailored to Florida 

golden aster with empirical data. 

Further support for using 1,000 

individuals as the threshold for the 

highest resiliency category came from a 

study of 10-year extirpation rates for 

populations of varying sizes of eight 

short-lived plant species in Germany 

(Matthies et al. 2004, pp. 481–488). In 

this study, for seven of eight species, the 

probability of population persistence 

increased with population size, and all 

populations of more than 1,000 

individuals (flowering plants) persisted 

for the duration of the 10-year study. 

We obtained the most recent size data 

for all 30 populations, with data 

collected as recently as 2018 for some 

populations, and none older than 2006 

for any population. However, 

population sizes have undoubtedly 

changed since the most recent surveys, 

as populations fluctuate in response to 

management actions, time since 

management, environmental events, 

stochastic demographic processes, and 

so forth. Thus, the reported numbers 

reflect best available estimates for 

population sizes, rather than precise 

counts meant to represent actual current 

population sizes. According to the SSA 

report, population sizes include all 

plants counted, whether flowering or 

not. Survey data for some populations 

provide separate counts for each life 

stage, but for many populations, survey 

data are simply numbers with no 

information about whether that number 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15773 

was only flowering plants, or all plants 

(Service 2018, p. 22). Using total plant 

numbers, and assuming that ambiguous 

counts are minimum counts of total 

plants in each population, we were 

conservative in our population counts. 

The alternative of assuming that 

ambiguous counts are of only flowering 

adult plants, when they may include 

basal rosettes, would inflate population 

sizes in cases where the assumption was 

wrong. 

Habitat Protection 

Habitat was considered ‘‘protected’’ if 

it was acquired in fee simple and placed 

into long-term conservation by a 

nongovernmental, local, State, or 

Federal entity, or if there is a binding 

land agreement. Protected sites have 

management plans developed and being 

implemented. The effect of the degree of 

habitat protection on resiliency is 

discussed below. 

Habitat Area Available 

Florida golden aster population sizes 

fluctuate and can occur in high 

densities in small patches of habitat. 

However, as a general rule of thumb for 

a given population size, a population 

covering a large area will be more 

resilient than a population covering a 

small area. A perturbation of the same 

size will have a proportionally larger 

effect on small-area populations than 

large-area populations. In assessing 

population resiliency, we considered 

the amount of habitat available rather 

than the amount of habitat occupied for 

two reasons. First, the amount of area 

occupied was very uncertain for most 

populations. Surveys are likely to return 

to known patches of the Florida golden 

aster, but new patches can be easily 

missed, and it is likely that the data we 

have underestimates the true amount of 

area occupied by the Florida golden 

aster. Adding to the uncertainty, the 

most current spatial data for some 

populations comes from 2006, and may 

no longer reflect the current distribution 

at those sites. Second, population 

footprints are not always static across 

available habitat; the Florida golden 

aster can spread into unoccupied areas 

as populations grow, or shift across a 

landscape as different areas become 

more or less suitable or both. For this 

reason, we used the amount of habitat 

available for populations to occupy 

currently, grow into, or shift into as a 

factor contributing to population 

resiliency. We identified available 

habitat within a 2-km radius around 

known occurrences, consistent with the 

assumption we made about pollinator 

movement when delineating 

populations. We characterize the 

available habitat for populations as 

small or large, with 14.2 hectares as the 

threshold between the two groups. This 

value was selected based on natural 

breaks in the data and expert input. 

Classifying Resiliency Based on the 

Selected Factors 

Resiliency classes were based 

primarily on population size as 

described above, with four resiliency 

classes corresponding to four 

population size categories. Populations 

with fewer than 100 individuals were 

determined to have low resiliency. 

Within the three higher population size 

categories (100–500, 501–1,000, and 

more than 1,000 plants), populations 

were assigned a baseline resiliency 

score associated with their population 

size (moderate, high, or very high, 

respectively). This baseline score could 

then be lowered by either of the two 

other factors, habitat protection and 

habitat area available; see table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—STRATEGY FOR ASSIGNING CURRENT RESILIENCY SCORES TO POPULATIONS OF C. FLORIDANA

Population size 

(# plants) Habitat protected Habitat not protected Habitat area available 

<100 ......................................................... Low Small. 

Large. 

100–500 ................................................... Low .......................................................... Low .......................................................... Small. 

Moderate .................................................. Low .......................................................... Large. 

501–1,000 ................................................ Moderate .................................................. Moderate .................................................. Small. 

High .......................................................... Moderate .................................................. Large. 

>1,000 ...................................................... High .......................................................... High .......................................................... Small. 

Very High ................................................. High .......................................................... Large. 

Populations that occur on nonprotected lands were assigned to the 

resiliency class one step lower than they 

would if they were on protected lands. 

By doing this, we did not intend to 

discount the importance of populations 

on non-protected lands to the viability 

of the species or imply that owners of 

these parcels are managing the land 

poorly or are harming the Florida 

golden aster. Large populations of 

Florida golden aster can be supported 

on private lands. For example, when 

private landowners burn pasture to 

improve forage for cattle, they may 

improve habitat for Florida golden aster. 

However, even large populations of fireadapted scrub plants can rapidly 

decline due to poor management (e.g., 

Polygal lewtonii, Weekley and Menges 

2012, entire; Warea carteri, QuintanaAscenscio et al. 2011, entire), and 

private lands that are not protected for 

conservation are at higher risk of 

changes in management or land use that 

could harm Florida golden aster 

populations. For populations that 

extend across property boundaries and 

contain individuals occurring on both 

protected and non-protected lands, we 

used the protection status that applied 

to most individuals to classify the entire 

population. 

Populations occupying or surrounded 

by a small area of available habitat were 

assigned to the resiliency class one step 

lower than they would otherwise be 

assigned if they existed within a larger 

area of available habitat, as they are less 

able to withstand and recover from 

perturbations or shift across a landscape 

as habitat quality changes. For any 

populations experiencing both 

resiliency-reducing conditions (small 

habitat area on non-protected lands), the 

resiliency score was only reduced one 

step rather than being reduced twice 

(i.e., once for each condition). The 

Duette populations were the most 

recently introduced populations. They 

have been growing rapidly and are 

surrounded by ample habitat and little 

to no development; therefore, these two 

populations were projected to increase 

from high to very high resiliency. 

Summaries of the 30 delineated 

populations and their resiliency scores 

can be found in the SSA report (Service 

2018, p. 32) and in table 2, below. In 

conclusion, resiliency scores remained 

stable. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
15774 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CURRENT RESILIENCY SCORES BY PROTECTED STATUS FOR FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER

Resiliency class All populations Protected Not protected 

Very High ......................................................................................................................... 7 7 0 

High .................................................................................................................................. 11 10 1 

Moderate .......................................................................................................................... 6 5 1 

Low .................................................................................................................................. 6 3 3 

Current Redundancy and 

Representation 

Redundancy for Florida golden aster 

is naturally low because it is an 

endemic species with a narrow range in 

Florida around the Tampa Bay region 

and Hardee County farther inland (with 

one population just across the border in 

Highlands County). The entire species’ 

range spans five counties, with half of 

the populations occurring in 

Hillsborough County (see figure 2, 

below). The longest distance between 

two populations is 131 km. However, as 

this is a narrow-ranging endemic, the 

spatial distribution of populations 

across its range does confer a moderate 

amount of redundancy, defined as the 

ability of the species to withstand 

catastrophic events. Catastrophic events 

could include, among others, fires 

occurring too frequently, droughts, 

disease outbreaks, or hurricanes with 

prolonged flooding, each of which have 

impacts at a different spatial scale. No 

information is known about seedbank 

resiliency in the soil for this species; 

without knowing this, it is difficult to 

predict long-term impacts of 

catastrophes. 

The 30 known populations are 

distributed in three main groupings. 

There are about 20–30 km between each 

of the groupings, providing a buffer 

around each that may protect them from 

catastrophic events affecting the others 

(e.g., disease outbreak, depending on 

transmission type and vectors). Within 

each geographic cluster, there are at 

least two highly or very highly resilient 

populations, which could serve as 

sources to naturally recolonize 

populations lost to catastrophic events. 

The Hardee-Highlands cluster has the 

lowest redundancy (two moderately 

resilient populations, six populations 

total) and is the most isolated from the 

other clusters. The Pinellas cluster has 

the next lowest redundancy of resilient 

populations (3 highly resilient 

populations, 4 populations total), and 

the Hillsborough-Manatee cluster has 

the highest redundancy (13 resilient 

populations, 20 populations total); see 

figure 2 below. Another factor 

contributing to redundancy is the wide 

range of property ownership; with so 

many managing entities, the species is 

buffered against poor management of 

any one entity (e.g., due to budget issues 

or changing priorities). Based on the 

spatial distribution of resilient 

populations managed by a variety of 

entities across a narrow range, current 

redundancy is considered qualitatively 

to be low to moderate. Rather than 

solely relying on this rather subjective 

classification in assessing the current 

viability of the species, characterizing 

current redundancy is most useful in 

comparison to redundancy under the 

future scenarios; see Future Conditions 

discussion below. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER05MR24.001</GPH>

Hillsborough 

Highlands 

N A 0~~1~5~~30~~~~~60 Kilometers 

FIGURE 2. Spatial distribution of Florida golden aster populations in three main geographic 

clusters across five counties in Florida. The number of populations with high and very high 

resiliency is shown within each cluster. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15775 

Representative units for this species 

could not be defined based on available 

data, with representation defined as the 

ability of the species to adapt to 

changing environmental conditions. 

Species experts contributing to the SSA 

suspect that there might be 

representative units with different 

genetic adaptations associated with soil 

differences, elevation above the water 

table, fire regime, or habitat structure. 

However, there are no data currently to 

confirm or refute these hypotheses. 

Genetic studies have found little to no 

genetic clustering among populations, 

with 80 percent of observed genetic 

variation occurring within populations, 

and only 20 percent of the variation 

attributable to between-population 

differences (Markham 1998, p. 41). 

These results support the existence of a 

single representative unit for the 

species. However, that study did not 

examine genetic markers known to be 

associated with adaptive traits. Vital 

rates and morphology were observed to 

differ between individuals from 

different source populations that were 

grown at Bok Tower Gardens and 

introduced to other sites (Campbell 

2008, entire). This observation provides 

evidence that there might be adaptive 

differences between different ‘‘types’’ of 

the Florida golden aster across the 

species’ range. However, without any 

firm evidence to define representative 

units, we refrain from doing so here. 

Future research on the Florida golden 

aster’s genetics, life history, and habitat 

differences can provide a more 

definitive basis for defining 

representative units in future iterations 

of the SSA report. 

Future Conditions 

Analytical Framework 

For the SSA report, we developed 

three plausible future scenarios under 

which to capture the breadth of all 

likely future variability and assess the 

future viability of Florida golden aster 

in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. Based on expert opinion, 

the lifespan of the Florida golden aster, 

ideal fire-return intervals (at least every 

10 years), uncertainty about future 

conditions, and lack of knowledge about 

certain aspects of Florida golden aster 

ecology, we chose to project populations 

20 years into the future under each 

scenario, although some of these 

projections could be reasonably 

expected to continue for some time after 

the 20 years. With approximately 30 

years of real data and trends, we project 

that the same trends will continue. The 

three hypothetical future scenarios are 

Status Quo, Pessimistic, and Targeted 

Conservation. 

In considering development as a 

threat, we used the SLEUTH (Slope, 

Land use, Excluded, Urban, 

Transportation and Hillshade; Jantz et 

al. 2010, p. 34:1–16) data sets from the 

years 2020 (closest to current year) and 

2040 (closest to 20 years in the future), 

and examined the area predicted, with 

at least 80 percent probability, to be 

urbanized. Therefore, our assessment 

was both quantitative, calculating the 

area within the 5-km buffer surrounding 

each population that was urbanized at 

each time point, and qualitative, 

inspecting the distribution of 

urbanization and major roads within 

that area (e.g., is the urbanization 

concentrated to one side of the 

population or surrounding it). 

With both the quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, we categorized 

populations as having either low risk or 

high risk of development impacting 

management for Florida golden aster. 

We defined high risk of impacting 

management as greater than 50 percent 

chance of negatively impacting 

management, and less than 50 percent 

for low risk. Populations classified as 

having low risk from development 

averaged 7.9 percent developed area 

within the 5-km buffer by 2040, with a 

range of 0 to 39 percent developed. 

Populations classified as having high 

risk from development averaged 45.5 

percent developed area within the same 

buffer, ranging from 23 to 85 percent. 

For three populations with a percent of 

developed area in the overlapping range 

between the two categories (23 to 39 

percent developed), the deciding factor 

between low risk and high risk was the 

distribution of development and roads 

around the population. 

Habitat Quantity 

Habitat quantity can be negatively 

impacted by development or land use 

change (particularly on private lands) or 

positively impacted by land acquisition, 

restoration, and introductions into 

unoccupied sites that already have 

presumably suitable habitat. 

Habitat Quality 

Habitat quality is closely tied to active 

habitat management to maintain 

openness either by prescribed burning 

or by other types of management. In 

constructing our scenarios, we 

considered two avenues by which future 

habitat management can be influenced: 

(1) the level of habitat management 

effort and (2) the amount and type of 

development near the Florida golden 

aster populations (to the extent the 

development affects the ability to 

conduct management actions, such as 

prescribed burns). First, the managing 

entities can choose their desired level of 

management effort by implementing (or 

not) a management plan or by allocating 

funding or personnel to or away from 

habitat management among competing 

priorities and limited resources. For our 

scenarios, we allowed for three levels of 

habitat management effort by managing 

entities. The first was management for 

stability, a moderate level of 

management that would be expected to 

maintain populations at their current 

size. The other two management levels 

were an increase, or a decrease, 

compared to management for stability. 

An increase in management effort 

would be expected to grow populations, 

while a decrease in management would 

be expected to result in population 

declines. 

The second avenue by which future 

habitat management can be influenced 

is development, particularly major roads 

and types of development associated 

with ‘‘vulnerable’’ human populations 

(e.g., schools, hospitals). This kind of 

development surrounding habitat limits 

management via prescribed burns by 

limiting the days that burns can take 

place—weather conditions must align to 

ensure proper smoke management. For 

example, if a population is surrounded 

by nearby development to the north and 

west, it can only be burned when the 

wind is blowing to the south and east. 

As more development surrounds 

populations, there is less flexibility for 

prescribed burns. However, the 

appropriate radius around populations 

within which development might 

impact management ranges from 0.8 km 

up to 8.0 km as the appropriate radius 

depends on a variety of factors for each 

burn, including the type of 

development, temperature, humidity, 

wind conditions, size of the planned 

burn, risk tolerance of those 

implementing the burn, and other 

factors. For the SSA, we chose an 

intermediate value, 5 km, in which to 

examine current and predicted future 

development. In choosing this concrete 

value, we acknowledged that this 

number is quite variable, and some 

burns will need to consider areas greater 

or less than 5 km away, but this value 

allowed us to gain a general 

understanding of the risks of 

development on managing surrounding 

populations. 

Within a 5-km radius around the 

Florida golden aster occurrences, we 

used geographic information systems 

(GIS) to examine current and projected 

urbanization and roads. Urbanization 

data came from the SLEUTH model, and 

road data were available from the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
15776 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Florida Department of Transportation. 

The SLEUTH model has previously 

been used to predict probabilities of 

urbanization across the southeastern 

United States in 10-year increments, 

and the resulting GIS data are freely 

available (Belyea and Terrando 2013, 

entire). For our 20-year future 

projection, we used the SLEUTH data 

sets from the years 2020 and 2040, and 

examined the area predicted, with at 

least 80 percent probability, to be 

urbanized. Our assessment was both 

quantitative, calculating the area within 

the 5-km buffer surrounding each 

population that was urbanized at each 

time point, and qualitative, inspecting 

the distribution of urbanization and 

major roads within that area (e.g., is the 

urbanization concentrated to one side of 

the population or surrounding it?). With 

this quantitative and qualitative 

assessment, we categorized populations 

as having either a low risk or a high risk 

of development impacting the ability to 

manage the population. 

These two aspects of future 

management, (1) management resources 

and willingness of the entity to manage, 

and (2) impacts of surrounding 

development on management, 

interacted in our future scenarios in the 

following way: with decreases in 

management effort (compared to 

management for stable populations), 

population resiliency decreased one 

level. With management for stability, 

population resiliency stayed the same as 

the current condition resiliency when 

there was low risk of development 

impacts; but where there was a high 

risk, resiliency decreased one level, 

reflecting that management will be more 

challenging with higher risk from 

development. With increases in 

management effort, population 

resiliency increased when there was low 

risk of development impacts, but stayed 

the same when there was a high risk; the 

increased management effort canceled 

out the increased risk caused by 

development. 

Future Scenarios 

Status Quo 

Under the Status Quo scenario, no 

new protected areas were acquired and 

no new populations were introduced. 

Management efforts for all populations 

were maintained at current levels, 

assuming that the ability to manage 

would not be hampered climate change 

or other factors. This scenario also 

assumes that conservation commitments 

outlined in management plans currently 

being implemented will continue. Of 

the introductions since 2008, all have 

more than 1,000 plants except for the 

two populations at Duette Preserve 

(North and South). 

Pessimistic 

Under the Pessimistic scenario, 

management effort on all populations 

decreased, resulting in a drop in 

resiliency scores across the board. 

Additionally, based on uncertainty in 

whether populations on non-protected 

lands would continue to be managed in 

a way that is compatible with continued 

Florida golden aster persistence, in this 

scenario all populations on nonprotected lands were assumed to be lost 

due to presumed land use or 

management change. As with the Status 

Quo scenario, no new protected areas 

were acquired, and no new populations 

were introduced. 

Targeted Conservation 

Under the Targeted Conservation 

scenario, populations with high and 

very high resiliency were managed to 

maintain their rank. In cases where 

populations had a high risk of 

development limiting the ability to 

manage, this goal involved an increase 

in management effort compared to what 

would be needed to maintain the same 

level of resiliency for a population with 

a low risk of development impacts. 

Populations with currently moderate 

resiliency on protected lands received 

management effort increases to either 

move them into the high resiliency class 

(low risk from development) or 

maintain moderate resiliency (high risk 

from development). Conservation 

resources were steered towards 

maintaining and growing these larger 

populations, and not as much towards 

rescuing populations that currently have 

low resiliency. Additionally, five new 

sites were selected across the species’ 

range in which to introduce new 

populations, thus improving species 

redundancy. 

Likelihood of Scenarios 

Of these three scenarios, the Status 

Quo scenario is the most likely to occur, 

although the Targeted Conservation 

scenario represents a likely future if 

both habitat-focused management 

(prescribed burning and mechanical or 

manual habitat management) by a 

variety of partners/managing entities 

and species-specific conservation 

(captive propagation and introductions) 

are prioritized and well-funded. The 

Pessimistic scenario was unlikely; given 

that Florida golden aster populations 

span so many different ownerships, it is 

unlikely that all the different managing 

entities will develop the land especially 

when there are other co-occurring 

endangered, threatened, and candidate 

species occupying the same habitat (e.g., 

Florida scrub-jay, Aphelocoma 

coerulescens; eastern indigo snake, 

Drymarchon couperi;. The Targeted 

Conservation scenario was not likely 

with current conservation resources but, 

as noted above, could reflect a likely 

future if the needed management and 

conservation actions are prioritized and 

well-funded. 

Future Resiliency 

Future (20 years) resiliency of Florida 

golden aster populations under three 

scenarios is summarized in the SSA 

report (Service 2018, p. 49), and is 

presented below in table 3. As implied 

by the scenario name, resiliency of 

populations under the Pessimistic 

scenario was predicted to be poor, with 

only 7 highly resilient populations, a 

decrease from 18 currently highly or 

very highly resilient populations. Under 

the Status Quo scenario, we expect 

resiliency to drop to 12 highly or very 

highly resilient populations due solely 

to the effect of development limiting the 

ability to adequately manage habitat. 

Under the Targeted Management 

scenario, focused management and 

conservation efforts to counteract 

detrimental effects of urbanization, the 

growth of existing populations, and the 

introduction of new populations are 

expected to result in significant gains in 

resilient populations, with an increase 

from 18 to 27 highly or very highly 

resilient populations expected highly or 

very highly resilient populations. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15777 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF RESILIENCY SCORES TALLIED ACROSS ALL POPULATIONS OF FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER FOR THE

CURRENT CONDITION AND FUTURE CONDITION UNDER THREE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS: STATUS QUO, PESSIMISTIC, AND TARGETED CONSERVATION

Resiliency class Current Status quo Pessimistic Targeted 

conservation 

Very High ......................................................................................................... 7 4 0 9 

High .................................................................................................................. 11 8 7 18

Moderate .......................................................................................................... 6 11 11 2 

Low .................................................................................................................. 6 3 5 2 

Likely Extirpated .............................................................................................. 0 4 7 4 

Future Redundancy and Representation 

Redundancy 20 years in the future 

was expected to decrease compared to 

current condition under the Status Quo 

and Pessimistic Scenarios. In all 

scenarios, the majority of highly and 

very highly resilient populations were 

found in Hillsborough and Manatee 

Counties. All redundancy of highly 

resilient populations in Pinellas County 

and the Hardee and Highlands Counties 

cluster is lost under the Pessimistic 

scenario. In the Status Quo scenario, 

where drops in resiliency were due to 

development risks to management, no 

highly resilient populations remained in 

the heavily urbanized Pinellas County. 

Even in the Targeted Conservation 

scenario, redundancy within Pinellas 

County did not improve, but both the 

number and distribution of highly 

resilient populations in the other two 

clusters did improve. We did not assess 

representation in the future due to a 

present lack of information needed to 

delineate representative units. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on the species. 

To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we evaluate the 

effects of all the relevant factors that 

may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative-effects 

analysis. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The Florida Administrative Code 5B– 

40 (Preservation of Native Flora of 

Florida) provides the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (FDACS) limited 

authority to protect plants on State and 

private lands (primarily from the 

standpoint of illegal harvest). Florida 

golden aster is listed as an Endangered 

Plant under this statute, which requires 

anyone wishing to ‘‘willfully harvest, 

collect, pick, remove, injure, or destroy 

any plant listed as endangered growing 

on the private land of another or on any 

public land or water’’ to ‘‘obtain the 

written permission of the owner of the 

land or water or his legal 

representative’’ (FAC 5B–40.003(1)(a)). 

A permit is also required to transport 

‘‘for the purpose of sale, selling, or 

offering for sale any plant contained on 

the endangered plant list which is 

harvested from such person’s own 

property’’ (FAC 5B–40.003(1)(c)). 

There are now several sites and 

thousands of plants under county and 

State protection. Specifically, 

Hillsborough County has purchased 

considerable acreage through the 

Endangered Land Acquisition and 

Protection Program that contain several 

large populations. Golden aster is also 

documented at Lake Manatee State 

Recreation Area and Little Manatee 

River State Park in Manatee and 

Hillsborough Counties. Currently, 27 

sites where the species occurs are 

subject to State laws. 

Determination of Florida Golden 

Aster’s Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an endangered species as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a threatened species as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether a species meets the definition 

of an endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we find that the present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of Florida golden aster 

habitat (Factor A), which was the basis 

for listing the species, is no longer a 

threat. At the time of listing, Florida 

golden aster was thought to persist only 

in Hillsborough County. Now, the 

species is known to occur in four 

additional counties: Hardee, Highlands, 

Mantee, and Pinellas Counties. While 

destruction and modification of habitat 

is still the primary threat to the species, 

the magnitude of this threat has been 

greatly reduced since listing. Further, 

the number of populations has 

increased. Under the recovery plan for 

the species, delisting could be 

considered if 20 populations were 

secured. The number of known extant 

populations has increased from 9 in 

1986 to 30 in 2017 because of additional 

surveys, habitat restoration, and 

outplanting within the historical range 

of the species. Of those 30 populations, 

25 populations are located on protected 

conservation lands, and 22 of those 25 

populations have been determined to 

have at least moderate resiliency. We 

expect current levels of management to 

continue these conservation lands at 

these locations, and we anticipate the 

number of individuals within the 

populations to increase. 

For the determination of whether the 

species is likely be become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all its range, and thus meet the Act’s 

definition of a threatened species, we 

considered the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ to 

be 20 years into the future under the 

three hypothetical future scenarios. Our 

SLEUTH tool projected future possible 

development to 20 years, NatureServ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
15778 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

considers large population sizes likely 

to persist over the next 20–30 years, and 

considerations of climate change make 

projections beyond 20 to 30 years much 

more speculative. Also, given the 

average lifespan of the species 

(approximately 3–5 years), a period of 

20 to 30 years allows for multiple 

generations and detection of any 

population changes. Under all three 

scenarios evaluated, the Florida golden 

aster is expected to continue to persist 

across its currently known range. Under 

the Status Quo scenario, which is also 

the most likely to occur, 12 populations 

are projected to be highly or very highly 

resiliency and 11 moderately resilient 

across all three geographic clusters, as 

habitat modification is no longer a 

threat for the populations on protected 

lands and current management of those 

lands is expected to continue. Four 

populations (three natural and one 

introduced) currently in low condition 

are projected to become extirpated in 

the Status Quo scenario. Even under the 

Pessimistic scenario, which is least 

likely to occur, 7 populations are 

projected to be in high condition and 11 

in moderate condition, all of which 

occur on protected lands with 

conservation management expected to 

continue at some level. Given that most 

populations projected to remain extant 

with at least moderate resiliency are on 

protected lands managed for scrub 

habitat, it is unlikely the species will 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all its 

range. Thus, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

the Florida golden aster is not in danger 

of extinction now or likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Having 

determined that the Florida golden aster 

is not in danger of extinction or likely 

to become so within the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range, we 

now consider whether it may be in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so within the foreseeable future in a 

significant portion of its range—that is, 

whether there is any portion of the 

species’ range for which it is true that 

both (1) the portion is significant, and 

(2) the species is in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

For Florida golden aster, we chose to 

evaluate the status question first. We 

began by identifying portions of the 

range where the biological status of the 

species may be different from its 

biological status elsewhere in its range. 

For this purpose, we considered 

information pertaining to the geographic 

distribution of individuals of the 

species, the threats that the species 

faces, and the resiliency condition of 

populations. 

We evaluated the range of the Florida 

golden aster to determine if the species 

is in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so within the foreseeable 

future in any portion of its range. The 

range of a species can theoretically be 

divided into portions in an infinite 

number of ways. We focused our 

analysis on portions of the species’ 

range that may meet the Act’s definition 

of an endangered species or a threatened 

species. For the Florida golden aster, we 

considered whether the threats or their 

effects on the species are greater in any 

biologically meaningful portion of the 

species’ range than in other portions 

such that the species is in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future in that 

portion. 

We examined the following threats: 

development and climate change, 

including cumulative effects. Currently, 

there are 30 known extant Florida 

golden aster populations occurring in 

five counties (Hillsborough, Manatee, 

Pinellas, Highlands, and Hardee 

Counties), with 25 of these populations 

occurring on conservation lands 

(Federal, State, and conservation 

easements). Climate change, as 

discussed above, is uniformly acting 

upon the species across its range, except 

for sea level rise, which would only 

potentially affect one population at Fort 

De Soto County Park in Pinellas County. 

As this would potentially impact just a 

single population out of 30 populations, 

we do not consider this concentration of 

threats to be at a biologically meaningful 

scale. 

Although development is currently 

concentrated in Pinellas County, that 

activity would negatively impact in the 

foreseeable future only five populations 

that occur on private lands or along 

roadways or railroad lines. However, 

two of these populations have high and 

moderate resiliency (the remaining three 

populations have low resiliency), and 

this pattern will continue in the future. 

The Pinellas County populations are 

currently in low condition, and some 

may become extirpated within the 

foreseeable future due to development. 

Therefore, our examination leads us to 

find that there is substantial information 

that the Pinellas County populations 

may become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future. 

We then proceeded to consider 

whether this portion of the range (i.e., 

the Pinellas County populations) is 

significant. For the purposes of this 

analysis, the Service is considering 

significant portions of the range by 

applying any reasonable definition of 

‘‘significant.’’ We assessed whether any 

portions of the range may be 

biologically meaningful in terms of the 

resiliency, redundancy, or 

representation of the entity being 

evaluated. This approach is consistent 

with the Act, our implementing 

regulations, our policies, and case law. 

Currently, the Pinellas County 

populations represent a small portion 

(less than 10 percent based on current 

extant populations) of the species’ 

range, which is not a large geographic 

area relative to the range of the species. 

Further, these populations were all 

introduced after listing (i.e., they are not 

naturally occurring populations) and are 

not contributing much to the viability of 

the species. This portion does not 

contribute high-quality habitat or 

constitute high-value habitat for the 

species. In addition, this portion does 

not constitute an area of habitat that is 

essential to a specific life-history 

function for the species that is not found 

in the remainder of the range. Therefore, 

this area does not represent a significant 

portion of the species’ range. 

Accordingly, we find that the Florida 

golden aster is not in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future in any 

significant portion of its range. This 

does not conflict with the courts’ 

holdings in Desert Survivors v. 

Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 

3d 1011, 1070–74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and 

Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 

248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) 

because, in reaching this conclusion, we 

did not apply the aspects of the Final 

Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 

‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), 

including the definition of ‘‘significant,’’ 

that those court decisions held to be 

invalid. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15779 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial data available 

indicates that the Florida golden aster 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species in accordance with sections 3(6) 

and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with 

our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2) 

currently in effect, Florida golden aster 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered or threated species. 

Therefore, we are removing the Florida 

golden aster from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants. 

Effects of This Final Rule 

This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) 

by removing the Florida golden aster 

from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants. On the effective date 

of this rule (see DATES, above), the 

prohibitions and conservation measures 

provided by the Act, particularly 

through sections 7 and 9, will no longer 

apply to the Florida golden aster. 

Federal agencies will no longer be 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act if activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out may 

affect the Florida golden aster. There is 

no critical habitat designated for this 

species, so this rule does not affect 50 

CFR 17.96. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, 

in cooperation with the States, to 

implement a monitoring program for not 

less than 5 years for all species that have 

been recovered. Post-delisting 

monitoring (PDM) refers to activities 

undertaken to verify that a species 

delisted due to recovery remains secure 

from the risk of extinction after the 

protections of the Act no longer apply. 

The primary goal of PDM is to monitor 

the species to ensure that its status does 

not deteriorate, and if a decline is 

detected, to take measures to halt the 

decline so that proposing it as an 

endangered or threatened species is not 

again needed. If at any time during the 

monitoring period, data indicate that 

protective status under the Act should 

be reinstated, we can initiate listing 

procedures, including, if appropriate, 

emergency listing. 

We have prepared a PDM plan for 

Florida golden aster. The PDM plan: (1) 

summarizes the status of Florida golden 

aster at the time of proposed delisting; 

(2) describes frequency and duration of 

monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring 

methods and potential sampling 

regimes; (4) defines what potential 

triggers will be evaluated to address the 

need for additional monitoring; (5) 

outlines reporting requirements and 

procedures; (6) proposes a schedule for 

implementing the PDM plan; and (7) 

defines responsibilities. 

We made the draft PDM plan 

available for public comments with the 

proposed rule published on June 24, 

2021 (86 FR 33177). We did not receive 

any comments on the draft PDM plan; 

therefore, we are adopting the draft plan 

as the final plan. The final PDM plan for 

the species can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071. It is our intent 

to work closely with our partners 

towards maintaining the recovered 

status of the Florida golden aster. 

Required Determinations 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 

1994(Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretary’s Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that no Tribes will 

be affected by this final rule because no 

Tribal lands, sacred sites, or resources 

will be affected by the removal of the 

Florida golden aster from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071 and upon 

request from the Florida Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are staff members of the Service’s 

Species Assessment Team and the 

Florida Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants by removing the entry for 

‘‘Chrysopsis floridana’’ under 

FLOWERING PLANTS. 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04278 Filed 3–4–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1