Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33177 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071; 

FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] 

RIN 1018–BE00 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of Chrysopsis 

floridana (Florida Golden Aster) From 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

remove the Florida golden aster 

(Chrysopsis floridana), a short-lived 

perennial, from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants 

(List) due to recovery (delist). This 

determination is based on our 

evaluation of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

which indicates that the threats to the 

species have been eliminated or reduced 

to the point that the species has 

recovered and no longer meets the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If this 

proposal is finalized, the Florida golden 

aster will be removed from the List. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

August 23, 2021. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by August 9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, check the 

Proposed Rules box to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: JAO (PRB/3W), 

5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

Document availability: The proposed 

rule and supporting documents 

(including the Species Status 

Assessment (SSA), post delisting 

monitoring plan, list of references cited, 

and 5-year review) are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071. 

We will notify the public on our 

website, https://www.fws.gov/ 

northflorida/, when these documents 

are available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay 

Herrington, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, North Florida 

Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 

Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, FL 

32256; telephone 722–469–4251. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments on: 

(1) Information concerning the 

biology and ecology of the Florida 

golden aster; 

(2) Relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to the Florida 

golden aster, particularly any data on 

the possible effects of climate change as 

it relates to habitat, the extent of State 

protection, and management that would 

be provided to this plant as a delisted 

species; 

(3) Current or planned activities 

within the geographic range of the 

Florida golden aster that may negatively 

impact or benefit the species; and 

(4) Any new information about this 

species and threats from invasive plants. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. For 

the immediate future, we will provide 

these public hearings using webinars 

that will be announced on the Service’s 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of these virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

Florida golden aster. The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33178 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994), our August 22, 2016, Director’s 

Memo on the Peer Review Process, and 

the Office of Management and Budget’s 

December 16, 2004, Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

(revised June 2012), we solicited 

independent scientific reviews of the 

information contained in the Florida 

golden aster SSA report. We sent the 

SSA report to six independent peer 

reviewers and received two responses. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found at https://

www.fws.gov/northflorida/. The SSA 

report was also submitted to our 

Federal, State, and Tribal partners for 

scientific review. We received review 

from two partners (Sheryl Bowman, 

Environmental Lands Management 

Coordinator, Hillsborough County, Lake 

Frances Field Office and Jennifer 

Possley, Conservation Team Leader/ 

Field Biologist, Fairchild Tropical 

Botanic Garden). In preparing this 

proposed rule, we incorporated the 

results of these reviews, as appropriate, 

into the final SSA report. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Florida golden aster was listed as 

endangered on May 16, 1986 (51 FR 

17974), under the Act. On August 29, 

1988, we released a recovery plan for 

the Florida golden aster. The recovery 

plan suggested that we consider the 

species for reclassification to threatened 

status when 10 geographically distinct 

self-sustaining populations of the plant 

are protected in Hardee, Hillsborough, 

Manatee, and Pinellas Counties, Florida. 

The latest 5-year review, completed 

March 20, 2017, indicated that the 

species’ status was improving, assigned 

a Recovery Priority Number of 8 

(indicating moderate degree of threat 

and high recovery potential), and 

recommended downlisting to 

threatened. The Service initiated the 

Florida golden aster SSA (see above) to 

aid in determining the appropriateness 

of reclassifying the species. 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, ecology, and overall 

viability of the Florida golden aster is 

presented in the SSA report (USFWS 

2018, available at https://www.fws.gov/ 

southeast/). A summary of that 

information is presented here. 

Florida golden aster is endemic to 

xeric (very dry) uplands east and 

southeast of the Tampa Bay area of 

central Florida. The historical range of 

the Florida golden aster is thought to 

span parts of Hillsborough, Manatee, 

Pinellas, Highlands, and Hardee 

Counties, but the true extent of the 

historical range is uncertain because the 

ecosystems on which it occurs were 

rapidly converted to residential, 

commercial, and agricultural uses after 

settlement of the region. Agriculture 

began in 1880 with grazing and 

production of citrus and row crops. 

Residential and commercial activity 

began around 1840, mainly in the 

Tampa Bay area and beach communities 

through the 1940s and 1950s, but 

suburban and rural areas started 

expanding in the 1960s and 1970s and 

development has continued at a 

consistent rate. The species was first 

collected and described from a 

specimen in Manatee County in early 

1901, with subsequent collections in 

Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties in 

the 1920s. The earliest known Manatee 

County and Pinellas County populations 

occurred in coastal areas of Bradenton 

Beach and St. Petersburg Beach. 

However, these populations have since 

been extirpated. The last remaining 

natural population known to occur in 

Pinellas County was discovered in 1983; 

however, a housing development 

eliminated all available habitat by 1985. 

When the species was listed as 

endangered in 1986, nine known extant 

populations of the species occurred in 

five locations, all coastal, in 

southeastern Hillsborough County 

(Wunderlin et al. 1981, entire). Since 

listing of the species, increased survey 

efforts have resulted in the discovery of 

additional populations, including 

occurrences further inland. Many of the 

newly discovered locations have since 

been acquired as protected sites with 

active conservation management 

activities implemented to improve 

habitat conditions. As discussed below, 

introductions have occurred on 

conservation lands in Hardee, 

Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas 

Counties. It is not known whether these 

introduction sites were historically 

occupied by the Florida golden aster, or 

if so, how long ago they supported 

natural populations. 

Based on the most current surveys 

across the species’ range (2006–2018), 

30 known extant populations, natural 

and introduced, occur in 5 counties 

(Hardee—4, Highlands—1, 

Hillsborough—16, Manatee—5, and 

Pinellas—4). Populations were 

delineated using a 2-kilometers (km) 

separation distance between 

occurrences (see Current Condition, 

below, for more information). Of these, 

25 populations occur entirely or mostly 

on 22 protected sites, meaning a site 

that has been acquired in fee simple and 

placed into long-term conservation, or a 

conservation easement or other binding 

land agreement by the site owner that 

shows a commitment to its conservation 

in perpetuity. In addition, all sites have 

a management agreement or plan both 

developed and implemented. None of 

the lands occupied by the Florida 

golden aster are federally owned or 

managed. The remaining five extant 

populations occur on private lands or 

along roadways or railroad lines. 

The most recent surveys showed that 

just over half of the Florida golden aster 

individuals occurred in nine introduced 

populations at eight sites. The earliest 

introductions took place in 1986; of 

those 10 introduced populations, 3 are 

still extant in Hardee and Manatee 

Counties, while 7 others in Pinellas and 

Hillsborough Counties failed. 

Introductions were again initiated 

during 2008–2013, when Bok Tower 

Gardens introduced 6 additional 

populations in Hardee, Manatee, and 

Pinellas Counties, containing 24,825 

plants (as of the most recent censuses, 

with about 12,000 in one population). 

All 6 populations had reached sizes 

>1,000 plants except for the populations 

at Duette Preserve (2 populations, North 

and South). However, given that the 

Duette populations were the most 

recently introduced populations (2013), 

have been growing rapidly, and are 

surrounded by ample habitat and little 

to no development, they should also 

reach sizes comparable to the other 

introduced populations. 

According to the most recent surveys, 

approximately 50,000 individuals exist 

with over 90 percent occurring in the 

populations located on protected lands. 

Although this estimate is the best 

available information, it gives only an 

approximation of the true current 

abundance of the Florida golden aster 

because surveys are not conducted 

every year and are conducted differently 

by various biologists for different 

purposes. Moreover, population sizes 

fluctuate annually. Twelve of the 30 

populations had more than 1,000 

individual plants present when last 

observed. We note that a 56-km gap 

occurs between the easternmost 

naturally occurring population in 

Manatee County and the nearest 

naturally occurring population in 

Hardee County, and it is not presently 

known whether this gap is due to the 

lack of suitable habitat, lack of 

observation, a long-distance dispersal 

event, or fragmentation of a formerly 

continuous distribution. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33179 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act defines an 

endangered species as a species that is 

‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range,’’ and 

a threatened species as a species that is 

‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. We consider these same five 

factors in reclassifying a species from 

endangered to threatened, and in 

delisting a species (50 CFR 424.11(c)– 

(e)). 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species—such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary of 

the Interior determines whether the 

species meets the definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ only after the Service conducts 

this cumulative analysis and describes 

the expected effect on the species now 

and in the foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

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

foreseeable future extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP24JN21.002</GPH>

N 

. 

, .. ·: 

~ .. ·.-: 

Figure 1. The five Florida counties where the Florida golden aster occurs as of 2017 are 

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

populations of the Florida golden aster were known to occur only in Hillsborough County. 
33180 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

To assess Florida golden aster 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

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

resiliency supports the ability of the 

species to withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluate an individual 

species’ life-history needs. During the 

next stage, we assess the historical and 

current condition of the species’ 

demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. In the final 

stage, we make predictions about the 

species’ responses to positive and 

negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we use the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

The Act directs us to determine 

whether any species is an endangered or 

a threatened species because of any 

factors affecting its continued existence. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report; the full SSA report can be found 

on the Southeast Region website at 

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071. 

Summary of SSA Analysis 

As described above, for a species to be 

viable there must be adequate 

redundancy (suitable number, 

distribution, and connectivity to allow 

the species to withstand catastrophic 

events), representation (genetic and 

environmental diversity to allow the 

species to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions), and 

resiliency (ability of a species to 

withstand unpredictable disturbance). 

Resiliency for Florida golden aster 

improves with maintained open habitat. 

Lambert and Menges (1996) recommend 

prescribed burning that mimics the 

historic burn pattern (frequent lowintensity fires in sandhill, less frequent 

burns in scrub, with fires primarily in 

late spring and summer) and periodic 

mechanical disturbance of the ground 

cover during late winter or early spring 

when seeds are dispersed. In the 

absence of fire, habitat openness can be 

maintained with mowing, hand removal 

of trees and shrubs near plants, or other 

mechanical treatments; populations 

have persisted along periodically 

mowed right of ways (e.g., underneath 

powerlines, along roads and railroads) 

for decades without a prescribed burn 

program. Populations must be suitably 

large and connected to provide a 

reservoir of individuals to crosspollinate with, 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). Redundancy improves 

with increasing numbers of populations, 

and connectivity (either natural or 

human-facilitated) allows connected 

populations to ‘‘rescue’’ each other after 

catastrophes. Representation improves 

with increased genetic diversity and/or 

environmental conditions within and 

among populations. 

Viability of the Florida golden aster 

has been and will continue to be 

impacted both negatively and positively 

by anthropogenic and natural 

influences. Historically, the primary 

threats to the Florida golden aster were 

habitat loss (resulting from human 

development) and habitat degradation 

due to lack of adequate habitat 

management. As threats to habitat have 

been alleviated via habitat protection 

and management, recovery has been 

further bolstered by captive propagation 

followed by introduction into 

unoccupied sites. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range 

The main threat to this species at the 

time of listing was the destruction and 

modification of habitat. Habitat 

destruction, modification, and 

degradation on private lands and habitat 

degradation from lack of adequate 

habitat management on public lands 

remain the primary risk factor to the 

species. The five populations occurring 

on private lands remain subject to 

adverse human activity including 

mowing, dumping, off-road recreational 

vehicles use, and land clearing. 

However, these activities are no longer 

threats to the 25 populations on public 

conservation lands because of 

controlled access and restricted use. 

Lack of management, especially the 

absence of periodic fire, historically led 

to habitat degradation throughout the 

species’ range. The Florida golden aster 

occurs in open sandy patches that 

historically were maintained by fire 

under natural conditions. Without 

naturally ignited fires or prescribed fire 

applications, the habitat becomes 

overgrown, resulting in unfavorable 

conditions for the species’ persistence. 

Ideal habitat management is generally 

regarded as prescribed burning that 

mimics the historical burn patterns 

(frequent low-intensity fires in sandhill, 

less frequent burns in scrub, with fires 

primarily in late spring and summer) 

and periodic mechanical disturbance of 

the ground cover during late winter or 

early spring when seeds are dispersed 

(Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121– 

137). Initial burning to restore the 

openness of degraded habitat involves 

frequent intense fires, after which 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33181 

burning can be less intense and frequent 

to simply maintain the habitat. Failing 

to maintain open scrub habitat can 

disrupt Florida golden aster 

reproduction, survival, and dispersal 

(Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121– 

137). 

As with habitat destruction and 

modification, this threat remains a 

concern mainly on private and nonconservation lands. Populations that 

occur on public conservation lands are 

often being managed to maintain 

optimal open scrub habitat. However, 

budget constraints, manageability, 

conflicting priorities, and other factors 

(weather, lack of equipment, staff 

shortages, etc.) may preclude proper 

management activities even on 

conservation lands. Additionally, 

proximity to urbanized areas can limit 

the number of days available for 

prescribed burns, and urbanization in 

the Tampa Bay area is increasing 

rapidly (Xian et al. 2005, pp. 920–928). 

To be optimal, burn days must have 

wind speeds and wind directions that 

do not unduly burden urbanized areas 

with smoke. For this reason, large rural 

tracts of habitat are easier to burn than 

small tracts tucked into developed 

areas. Increasing development could 

lead to further decreases in the ability 

to conduct prescribed burning in the 

future, which may or may not be 

replaced with adequate habitat 

management by other means (e.g., 

mowing) that are more expensive than 

using fire. The type of development also 

factors into management ability and 

flexibility, with major roads, schools, 

hospitals, retirement homes (places with 

vulnerable populations) weighing more 

heavily on the decision of if/when to 

burn than other types of development 

(Camposano 2018, pers. comm.). 

Since the time of listing, conservation 

efforts for Florida golden aster and other 

scrub habitat species have reduced the 

threat of habitat destruction, 

modification, and degradation. These 

conservation efforts include acquiring 

properties where the species naturally 

occurs, introducing populations on 

conservation lands, and conducting 

ongoing habitat management on 

conservation lands (e.g., prescribed 

burning). While habitat destruction and 

modification may still occur on private 

lands, 83 percent of the sites are on 

public conservation lands and, 

therefore, for the most part, are 

adequately managed and protected. 

Land acquisitions and introductions 

have increased the number of 

established populations within the 

historical range and have resulted in the 

expansion of the species’ known range. 

Further, if this rulemaking process 

results in the species being delisted, it 

will remain listed as threatened under 

State laws. The State will develop a 

management plan and regulatory 

guidelines to monitor the species. Based 

on the best available information, we 

conclude that resources for necessary 

management activities on conservation 

lands will continue. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

At the time of listing, this species was 

not known to be threatened by 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational uses. This factor of the 

listing process continues not to be a 

threat to the Florida golden aster at this 

time. 

Disease or Predation 

Grazing by domestic livestock was 

initially identified as a stressor because 

the populations were on private lands 

and many of the properties were in 

cattle production. However, at present 

the 25 populations on conservation 

lands are not subject to any agriculture 

practices. No cattle grazing occurs on 

any of these properties. As to the 

populations on private lands, 

acquisition of scrub habitat containing 

Florida golden aster in Hardee County 

would allow proper management of 

these tracts, as has been initiated on 

public lands in Hillsborough County. 

Because Hardee County has extensive 

areas of improved pasture and 

unimproved pasture, we will assess the 

effect of cattle grazing on Florida golden 

aster habitat. Based on the information 

obtained from this assessment, we will 

be able to provide management 

recommendations to cattle ranchers to 

protect Florida golden aster on private 

property (Bok Tower Gardens 2020, p. 

879). Therefore, we no longer consider 

grazing to be a threat. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The Florida Administrative Code 5B– 

40 (Preservation of Native Flora of 

Florida) provides the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services limited authority to 

protect plants on State and private lands 

(primarily from the standpoint of illegal 

harvest). Florida golden aster is listed as 

an Endangered Plant under this statute, 

which requires anyone wishing to 

‘‘willfully harvest, collect, pick, remove, 

injure, or destroy any plant listed as 

endangered growing on the private land 

of another or on any public land or 

water’’ to ‘‘obtain the written 

permission of the owner of the land or 

water or his legal representative’’ (FAC 

5B–40.003(1)(a)). A permit is also 

required to transport ‘‘for the purpose of 

sale, selling, or offering for sale any 

plant contained on the endangered plant 

list which is harvested from such 

person’s own property’’ (FAC 5B– 

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

Florida golden aster under the Act will 

not affect this State listing. 

A number of sites, consisting of 

thousands of plants, are now under 

county and State protection. 

Specifically, Hillsborough County has 

purchased considerable acreage through 

the Endangered Land Acquisition and 

Protection Program (ELAPP), which 

contains several large populations. In 

1987, Hillsborough County passed the 

Environmentally Sensitive Lands 

Ordinance that established the 

foundation for ELAPP. This program 

applies to nine populations on six sites 

in Hillsborough County. In 1990, this 

ordinance was amended and approved 

for another 20 years by increasing 

county taxes to allow additional funds 

to acquire conservation lands. In 

November 2008, voters approved the 

issuance of up to $200 million in bonds 

for additional purchases. 

ELAPP has worked with the 

Southwest Florida Water Management 

District and Florida Forever to jointly 

fund the acquisition of lands. Some of 

this money is also used for ELAPP to 

actively manage their properties to 

benefit Florida golden aster. Therefore, 

we find that the existing regulatory 

mechanisms would provide sufficient 

protections to the species and habitat 

after delisting, especially on public 

lands with ordinance protection. 

Currently, 27 sites where the species 

occurs are subject to Florida State law. 

These State and local protections have 

proven effective. For example, 

prescribed burning will continue 

through the ELAPP. Although we 

acknowledge that this could change in 

the future, we do not anticipate any 

future changes to the implementation of 

these programs at this time. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Our analyses under the Act include 

consideration of ongoing and projected 

changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ 

and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). A recent compilation of 

climate change and its effects is 

available from reports of the IPCC (IPCC 

2014, entire). The term ‘‘climate 

change’’ thus refers to a change in the 

mean or variability of one or more 

measures of climate (e.g., temperature or 

precipitation) that persists for an 

extended period, typically decades or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33182 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

longer, whether the change is due to 

natural variability, human activity, or 

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

of changes in climate can have direct or 

indirect effects on species. These effects 

may be positive, neutral, or negative and 

they may change over time, depending 

on the species and other relevant 

considerations, such as the effects of 

interactions of climate with other 

variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 

(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our 

analyses, we use our expert judgment to 

weigh relevant information, including 

uncertainty, in our consideration of 

various aspects of climate change. 

The IPCC concluded that the climate 

system is warming (Pachauri et al. 2014, 

entire). Effects associated with changes 

in climate have been observed, 

including changes in arctic 

temperatures and ice, widespread 

changes in precipitation amounts, ocean 

salinity, and wind patterns and aspects 

of extreme weather including droughts, 

heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the 

intensity of tropical cyclones (Pachauri 

et al. 2014, entire). Species that are 

dependent on specialized habitat types, 

limited in distribution, or at the extreme 

periphery of their range may be most 

susceptible to the impacts of climate 

change (Byers and Norris 2011, entire; 

Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193–210). 

However, while continued change is 

certain, the magnitude and rate of 

change is unknown in many cases. The 

magnitude and rate of change could be 

affected by many factors (e.g., weather 

circulation patterns). 

According to the IPCC, ‘‘most plant 

species cannot naturally shift their 

geographical ranges sufficiently fast to 

keep up with current and high projected 

rates of climate change on most 

landscapes’’ (IPCC 2014, p. 13). Plant 

species with restricted ranges may 

experience population declines as a 

result of the effects of climate change. 

The concept of changing climate can be 

meaningfully assessed both by looking 

into the future and reviewing past 

changes. 

Using the National Climate Change 

Viewer and greenhouse gas emission 

scenario Representative Concentration 

Pathway (RCP) 8.5, we calculated 

projected annual mean changes in the 

period 1981–2010 to those projected for 

2025–2049 for maximum temperature, 

precipitation, soil storage, and 

evaporative deficit in all counties where 

Florida golden aster occurs (Adler and 

Hostetler 2017, entire). We also 

calculated projected annual mean 

changes for a more conservative 

greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP 

4.5) using the same timeframes for 

maximum temperature, precipitation, 

soil storage, and evaporative deficit in 

all counties where Florida golden aster 

occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, 

entire). Based on these results, all 13 

counties within the range of Florida 

golden aster will be subjected to higher 

temperatures (annual mean increase of 

2.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°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)) 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 are, but 

suggest that overall annual precipitation 

will decrease, and that tropical storms 

will occur less frequently, but with 

more force (more category 4 and 5 

hurricanes) than historical averages 

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

levels are expected to rise globally, 

potentially exceeding 1 m of sea level 

rise by 2100 (Reynolds et al. 2012, 

entire). Local sea level rise impacts 

depend not only on how much the 

ocean level itself is increasing, but also 

on land subsidence and/or changes in 

offshore currents (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 

396–417), and impacts on terrestrial 

ecosystems can occur via submergence 

of habitat during storm surges or 

permanently, salt water intrusion into 

the water table, and erosion. Of the 

current populations of the Florida 

golden aster, only one (Fort De Soto 

County Park, Pinellas County) is 

directly vulnerable to inundation from 

0.3 meters of sea level rise, a reasonable 

estimate of sea level rise by 2050. Hotter 

and drier conditions in the future could 

lead to fewer days with optimal 

conditions for prescribed burning, 

which could lead to reduced habitat 

quality if land managers are unable to 

make up for the lack of burning with 

adequate mechanical treatment. 

It is possible that there will be 

increases in the number of lightning 

strikes and sizes and severities of 

resulting fires, which could have a 

positive or negative effect on specific 

Florida golden aster populations. 

Hurricanes similarly could have 

positive or negative effects on the 

species. Prolonged flooding could harm 

populations, but the mechanical 

disturbance of trees being uprooted from 

flood events could improve habitat for 

colonizing species like the Florida 

golden aster (Menges and Johnson, pers. 

comm. 2017). 

Other potential climate change effects 

include changes in temperature and 

precipitation. Projections for future 

precipitation trends in the Southeast are 

less certain than those for temperature, 

but suggest that overall annual 

precipitation will decrease. Hotter and 

drier conditions may complicate the 

ability to manage Florida golden aster 

with prescribed fires. Some terrestrial 

plant populations have been able to 

adapt and respond to changing climatic 

conditions (Franks et al. 2013, entire). 

Both plastic (phenotypic change such as 

leaf size or phenology) and evolutionary 

(shift in allelic frequencies) responses to 

changes in climate have been detected. 

Both can occur rapidly and often 

simultaneously (Franks et al. 2013, 

entire). However, relatively few studies 

are available that (1) directly examine 

plant responses over time, (2) clearly 

demonstrate adaptation or the causal 

climatic driver of these responses, or (3) 

use quantitative methods to distinguish 

plastic versus evolutionary responses 

(Franks et al. 2013, entire). 

As noted earlier, only one population 

(Fort De Soto County Park, Pinellas 

County) is directly vulnerable to 

inundation from 0.3 meters of sea level 

rise, a reasonable estimate of sea level 

rise by 2050. We have no additional 

information or data regarding effects of 

climate change with respect to the 

Florida golden aster populations into 

the future; further research will be 

helpful to determine how this species 

responds directly to changes in 

temperature and water availability. 

However, from this information, we 

anticipate that effects to Florida golden 

aster from climate change will be 

limited and will not rise to the level of 

a threat. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33183 

Other influences not discussed in 

detail here, either because they are not 

thought to be a major threat or there is 

little information available, include 

invasive plant species like cogongrass 

(Imperata cylindrica), and future genetic 

consequences of small and/or 

translocated populations. 

Synergistic Effects 

Many of the stressors discussed in 

this analysis could work in concert with 

each other and result in a cumulative 

adverse effect to Florida golden aster, 

e.g., one stressor may make the species 

more vulnerable to other threats. 

Synergistic interactions are possible 

between effects of climate change and 

effects of other threats, such as mowing, 

dumping, off-road recreational vehicle 

use, and land clearing. However, we 

currently do not have information to 

determine the likely effects of climate 

change on interaction/competition 

between species, or on drought 

conditions. Uncertainty about how 

different plant species will respond 

under a changing climate makes 

projecting possible synergistic effects of 

climate change on Florida golden aster 

speculative. However, the increases 

documented in the number of 

populations since the species was listed 

do not indicate that cumulative effects 

of various activities and stressors are 

affecting the viability of the species at 

this time. Based on our analysis of 

future stressors, we do not anticipate 

that cumulative effects will affect the 

viability of the species in the foreseeable 

future. Likewise, climate change, as 

discussed above, with hotter and drier 

conditions can add additional 

complexity to future prescribed burns. 

Available habitat in those tracts that are 

easier to burn, and that can be managed 

by other methods (e.g., mechanical 

manipulation) will be sufficient. 

Similarly, most of the potential stressors 

we identified either have not occurred 

to the extent originally anticipated at 

the time of listing or are adequately 

managed as described in this proposal 

to delist the species. In addition, we do 

not anticipate significant stressors to 

increase on publicly owned lands or 

lands that are managed for the species. 

Current Condition 

Delineating Populations 

For the SSA, we delineated 

populations using a 2-km separation 

distance rule based on species expert 

opinion, resulting in 30 populations 

across 5 counties. This strategy differs 

from the 1-km separation distance rule 

that was used in the most recent 5-year 

review, which was based on 

NatureServe’s default criteria for 

defining plant populations (NatureServe 

2004, entire). The team of species 

experts providing input on the SSA 

suspected that 1 km is likely an 

underestimate of the distances that gene 

flow can regularly occur via pollination. 

While the exact insect pollinators of the 

Florida golden aster are not known, 

studies on multiple bee species (major 

plant and Chrysopsis pollinators) 

demonstrate foraging distances that 

regularly exceed 1 km (Greenleaf et al. 

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

144). 

Current Resiliency 

Resiliency refers to the ability of 

populations to withstand stochastic 

events, whether demographic, 

environmental, or anthropogenic. 

Populations with low resiliency are 

highly vulnerable to stochastic events 

and face a high risk of extirpation 

within the next few decades. 

Populations with moderate resiliency 

are less likely to be extirpated within 

the next few decades, but require 

additional growth (with help of regular 

habitat management and/or restoration) 

to become more self-sustaining and 

resilient to stochastic events. 

Populations with high resiliency are 

unlikely to be extirpated within the next 

30 years in the absence of catastrophes 

or significant declines in the quality of 

habitat management. Populations with 

very high resiliency are the most robust 

and resistant to stochastic fluctuations. 

In the SSA, we assessed resiliency for 

each population using three factors: 

Population size, habitat protection, and 

area of available habitat. Other factors 

were considered that likely contribute to 

population resiliency, but data were not 

available to assess them over all or most 

of the populations including certain 

explicit measures of habitat quality, fire 

management, existence of land 

management plans, and population 

trends. While some past survey data are 

available for many populations, species 

experts did not feel comfortable 

comparing population counts across 

time periods. In many cases, differences 

in population sizes were likely not a 

result of increasing populations, but 

rather of differences in survey 

methodology, number of surveyors, and/ 

or areas searched (e.g., surveyors who 

were more likely to visit known patches 

and not find new patches; alternately, a 

bias toward larger counts over time as 

old patches are revisited and additional 

patches are found). Nevertheless, we are 

confident that this population data 

demonstrates resiliency of the species. 

Regardless, this species has not been 

extensively studied; therefore, there was 

some uncertainty in the SSA in 

precisely how these factors influenced 

the Florida golden aster population 

resiliency. 

Population Size 

Population size is both a direct 

contributor to resiliency and an indirect 

indicator of resiliency. Small 

populations are more susceptible to 

demographic and environmental 

stochastic events than larger 

populations. Small populations are also 

more likely to suffer from decreased 

fitness as a result of low genetic 

diversity from inbreeding or genetic 

drift (Willi et al. 2005, pp. 2255–2265). 

For Florida golden aster, large 

populations are more buffered from the 

effects of prescribed burning or other 

disturbances, which are necessary to 

maintain open habitat, but can 

temporarily reduce population sizes by 

killing plants. Indirectly, large 

population sizes are likely indicative of 

other conditions that contribute to 

population resiliency. For example, in 

the SSA, we did not have adequate data 

to assess habitat quality and the quality 

of management at all the Florida golden 

aster populations; therefore, we 

assumed large population sizes likely 

generally reflected good habitat quality 

and management (among other factors) 

compared to smaller populations, 

though this assumption may not hold in 

all cases. 

We categorized populations into 4 

size classes: <100 individuals, 100–500 

individuals, 501–1,000 individuals, and 

>1,000 individuals. Each population 

size class was associated with one of the 

following baseline resiliency classes, 

respectively: Low, moderate, high, and 

very high (explained further below). 

We chose the population size 

threshold between high and very high 

resiliency of 1,000 individuals because 

it is the typical population size used to 

rank element occurrences as having 

‘‘excellent viability’’ and likely to 

persist for the next 20–30 years 

(NatureServe 2008, entire). This is a 

generic population size limit that was 

not specifically tailored to Florida 

golden aster with empirical data. 

Further support for using 1,000 

individuals as the threshold for the 

highest resiliency category came from a 

study of 10-year extirpation rates for 

populations of varying sizes of 8 shortlived plant species in Germany 

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

this study, for 7 of 8 species, the 

probability of population persistence 

increased with population size, and all 

populations of more than 1,000 

individuals (flowering plants) persisted 

for the duration of the 10-year study. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33184 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

We obtained the most recent size data 

for all 30 populations, with data 

collected as recently as 2018 for some 

populations, and no older than 2006 for 

any population. Population sizes have 

undoubtedly changed since the last 

surveys for those populations that have 

not been surveyed as recently, as 

populations fluctuate in response to 

management actions, time since 

management, environmental events, 

stochastic demographic processes, etc. 

Thus, the reported numbers reflect best 

available estimates for population sizes, 

rather than precise counts meant to 

represent actual current population 

sizes. According to the SSA, population 

sizes included all plants counted, 

whether flowering or not. Survey data 

for some populations provided separate 

counts for each life stage, but for many 

populations, survey data were simply 

numbers with no information about 

whether that number was only 

flowering plants, or all plants (USFWS 

2017, p. 22). Using total plant numbers, 

and assuming that ambiguous counts 

were minimum counts of total plants in 

each population, we were conservative 

in our population counts. The 

alternative of assuming that ambiguous 

counts were of only flowering adult 

plants, when they may have included 

basal rosettes, would inflate population 

sizes in cases where the assumption was 

wrong. 

Habitat Protection 

Habitat was considered ‘‘protected’’ if 

it was acquired in fee simple and placed 

into long-term conservation by a 

nongovernmental, local, State, or 

Federal entity, or a binding land 

agreement. Protected sites have 

management plans developed and being 

implemented. The effect of the degree of 

habitat protection on resiliency is 

discussed below. 

Habitat Area Available 

The Florida golden aster population 

sizes fluctuate, and can occur in high 

densities in small patches of habitat. 

However, as a general rule of thumb, for 

a given population size, a population 

covering a large area will be more 

resilient than a population covering a 

small area. A perturbation of the same 

size will have a proportionally larger 

effect on small-area populations than 

large-area populations. In assessing 

population resiliency, we considered 

the amount of habitat available rather 

than the amount of habitat occupied for 

two reasons. First, the amount of area 

occupied was very uncertain for most 

populations. Surveys are likely to return 

to known patches of the Florida golden 

aster, but new patches can be easily 

missed and it is likely that the data we 

had underestimates the true amount of 

area occupied by the Florida golden 

aster. Adding to the uncertainty, the 

most current spatial data for some 

populations came from 2006, and may 

no longer reflect the current distribution 

at those sites. Second, population 

footprints are not always static across 

available habitat; the Florida golden 

aster can spread into unoccupied areas 

as populations grow, or shift across a 

landscape as different areas become 

more or less suitable or both. For this 

reason, we used the amount of habitat 

available for populations to occupy 

currently, grow into, or shift into as a 

factor contributing to population 

resiliency. We identified available 

habitat within a 2-km radius around 

known occurrences, consistent with the 

assumption we made about pollinator 

movement when delineating 

populations. We characterized the 

available habitat for populations as 

small or large, with 14.2 hectares as the 

threshold between the two groups. This 

value was selected based on natural 

breaks in the data and expert input. 

Classifying Resiliency Based on the 

Selected Factors 

Resiliency classes were based 

primarily on population size as 

described above, with four resiliency 

classes corresponding to four 

population size categories. Populations 

with fewer than 100 individuals were 

determined to have low resiliency. 

Within the three higher population size 

categories (100–500, 501–1,000, and 

>1,000 plants), populations were 

assigned a baseline resiliency score 

associated with their population size 

(moderate, high, or very high, 

respectively). This baseline score could 

then be lowered by either of the two 

other factors, habitat protection and 

habitat area available (Table 1). 

TABLE 1—STRATEGY FOR ASSIGNING CURRENT RESILIENCY SCORES TO POPULATIONS OF FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER

Population size 

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

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

Large. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Populations that occur on 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 mean to 

discount the importance of populations 

on non-protected lands to the viability 

of the species or imply that owners of 

these parcels are managing the land 

poorly or are harming the Florida 

golden aster. Large populations of 

Florida golden aster can be supported 

on private lands. For example, when 

private landowners burn pasture to 

improve forage for cattle, they may 

improve habitat for Florida golden aster. 

However, even large populations of 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 these 

lands that are not protected for 

conservation are at higher risk of 

changes in management or land use that 

could harm Florida golden aster 

populations. For populations that 

extend across property boundaries and 

contain individuals occurring on both 

protected and non-protected lands, we 

used the protection status that applied 

to the majority of individuals to classify 

the entire population. 

Populations occupying or surrounded 

by a small area of available habitat were 

assigned to the resiliency class one step 

lower than they would if they existed 

within a larger area of available habitat, 

as they are less able to withstand and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33185 

recover from perturbations or shift 

across a landscape as habitat quality 

changes. For any populations 

experiencing both of these resiliencyreducing conditions (small habitat area 

on non-protected lands), their resiliency 

score was only reduced one step rather 

than being reduced twice, once for each 

factor. The Duette populations were the 

most recently introduced populations 

(2013). They have been growing rapidly 

and are surrounded by ample habitat 

and little to no development; therefore, 

these two populations were projected to 

increase from high to very high 

resiliency. 

Summaries of the 30 delineated 

populations and their resiliency scores 

can be found in the SSA and in Table 

2, below. In conclusion, resiliency 

scores remained stable. 

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

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 

around the Tampa Bay region in Florida 

and Hardee County farther inland (with 

one population just across the border in 

Highlands County). The entire species’ 

range spans five counties, with half of 

the populations occurring in 

Hillsborough County (Figure 2). The 

longest distance between two 

populations is 131 km. However, as this 

is a narrow-ranging endemic, the spatial 

distribution of populations across its 

range does confer a moderate amount of 

redundancy, defined as the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic 

events. Catastrophic events could 

include, among others, too frequent 

fires, droughts, disease outbreaks, or 

hurricanes with prolonged flooding, 

each of which have impacts at a 

different spatial scale. No information is 

known about seedbank resiliency in the 

soil for this species; without knowing 

this, it is difficult to predict long-term 

impacts of catastrophes. 

The 30 known populations are 

distributed in 3 main groupings. There 

is about 20–30 km between each of the 

groupings, providing a buffer around 

each that may protect them from 

catastrophic events affecting the others 

(e.g., disease outbreak, depending on 

transmission type and vectors). Within 

each geographic cluster, there are at 

least two highly or very highly resilient 

populations, which could serve as 

sources to naturally recolonize 

populations lost to catastrophic events. 

The Hardee-Highlands cluster has the 

lowest redundancy (two moderately 

resilient populations, six populations 

total) and is the most isolated from the 

other clusters. The Pinellas cluster has 

the next lowest redundancy of resilient 

populations (3 highly resilient 

populations, 4 populations total), and 

the Hillsborough-Manatee cluster has 

the highest redundancy (13 resilient 

populations, 20 populations total). 

Another factor contributing to 

redundancy is the wide range of 

property ownership; with so many 

managing entities, the species as a 

whole is buffered against poor 

management of any one entity (e.g., due 

to budget issues or changing priorities). 

Based on the spatial distribution of 

resilient populations managed by a 

variety of entities across a narrow range, 

current redundancy is considered 

qualitatively to be low to moderate. 

Rather than solely relying on this rather 

subjective classification in assessing the 

current viability of the species 

characterizing current redundancy is 

most useful in comparison to 

redundancy under the future scenarios. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33186 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Representative units for this species 

could not be defined based on available 

data, with representation defined as the 

ability of the species to adapt to 

changing environmental conditions. 

Species experts contributing to the SSA 

suspect that there might be 

representative units with different 

genetic adaptations associated with soil 

differences, elevation above the water 

table, fire regime, or habitat structure. 

However, there are no data currently to 

confirm or refute these hypotheses. 

Genetic studies have found little to no 

genetic clustering among populations, 

with 80 percent of observed genetic 

variation occurring within populations, 

and only 20 percent of the variation 

attributable to between-population 

differences (Markham 1998). These 

results support the existence of a single 

representative unit for the species. 

However, that study did not examine 

genetic markers known to be associated 

with adaptive traits. Vital rates and 

morphology were observed to differ 

between individuals from different 

source populations that were grown at 

Bok Tower Gardens and introduced to 

other sites (Campbell 2008). This 

observation provides evidence that there 

might be adaptive differences between 

different ‘‘types’’ of the Florida golden 

aster across the species’ range. However, 

without any firm evidence to define 

representative units, we refrain from 

doing so here. Future research on the 

Florida golden aster genetics and life 

history and habitat differences can 

provide a more definitive basis for 

defining representative units in future 

iterations of the SSA. 

Future Condition—Analytical 

Framework 

For the SSA, we developed three 

plausible future scenarios under which 

to capture the breadth of all likely future 

variability and assess the future viability 

of Florida golden aster in terms of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. Based on expert opinion, 

the lifespan of the Florida golden aster, 

ideal fire-return intervals (at least every 

10 years), uncertainty about future 

conditions, and lack of knowledge about 

aspects of Florida golden aster ecology, 

we chose to project populations 20 years 

into the future under each scenario, 

although some of these projections 

could be reasonably expected to 

continue for some time after the 20 

years. With approximately 30 years of 

real data and trends, we project that the 

same trends will continue into the 

future for about 20 to 30 years. The 

three hypothetical future scenarios are 

Status Quo, Pessimistic, and Targeted 

Conservation. 

In considering development as a 

threat, for our 20-year future projection 

we used the SLEUTH (Slope, Land use, 

Excluded, Urban, Transportation and 

Hillshade; Jantz et al., 2010, p. 34:1–16) 

data sets from the years 2020 and 2040 

and examined the area predicted, with 

at least 80 percent probability, to be 

urbanized. The most important factors 

identified by species experts to consider 

into the future were habitat quantity and 

quality. 

Therefore, our assessment was both 

quantitative, calculating the area within 

the 5-km buffer surrounding each 

population that was urbanized at each 

time point, and qualitative, inspecting 

the distribution of urbanization and 

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

urbanization concentrated to one side of 

the population or completely 

surrounding it?). 

With both the quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, we categorized 

populations as having either low risk or 

high risk of development impacting 

management for Florida golden aster. 

We defined high risk of impacting 

management as >50 percent chance of 

negatively impacting management, and 

<50 percent for low risk. Populations 

classified as having low risk from 

development averaged 7.9 percent 

developed area within the 5-km buffer 

by 2040, with a range of 0 to 39 percent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP24JN21.003</GPH>

Hardee 

Highlands 

15 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. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33187 

developed. Populations classified as 

having high risk from development 

averaged 45.5 percent developed area 

within the same buffer, ranging from 23 

to 85 percent. For three populations 

with a percent of developed area in the 

overlapping range between the two 

categories (23 to 39 percent developed), 

the deciding factor between low risk 

and high risk was the distribution of 

development and roads around the 

population. 

Habitat Quantity 

Habitat quantity can be negatively 

impacted by development or land use 

change (particularly on private lands) or 

positively impacted by land acquisition, 

restoration, and introductions into 

unoccupied sites that already have 

presumably suitable habitat. 

Habitat Quality 

Habitat quality is closely tied to active 

habitat management to maintain 

openness either by prescribed burning 

or by other types of management. In 

constructing our scenarios, we 

considered two avenues by which future 

habitat management can be influenced, 

the level of habitat management effort 

and the amount and type of 

development near the Florida golden 

aster populations (to the extent the 

development affects the ability to 

conduct management actions, such as 

prescribed burns). First, the managing 

entities can choose their desired level of 

management effort by implementing (or 

not) a management plan or by allocating 

funding or personnel to or away from 

habitat management among competing 

priorities and limited resources. For our 

scenarios, we allowed for three levels of 

habitat management effort by managing 

entities. The first was management for 

stability, a moderate level of 

management that would be expected to 

maintain populations at their current 

size. The other two management levels 

were an increase, or a decrease, 

compared to management for stability. 

An increase in management effort 

would be expected to grow populations, 

while a decrease in management would 

be expected to result in population 

declines. 

The second avenue by which future 

habitat management can be influenced 

is development, particularly major roads 

and types of development associated 

with ‘‘vulnerable’’ human populations 

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

development surrounding habitat limits 

management via prescribed burns by 

limiting the days that burns can take 

place—weather conditions have to align 

to ensure proper smoke management. 

For example, if a population is 

surrounded by nearby development to 

the north and west, it can only be 

burned when the wind is blowing to the 

south and east. As more development 

surrounds populations, there is less 

flexibility for prescribed burns. 

However, the appropriate radius around 

populations within which development 

might impact management ranges from 

0.8 km up to 8.0 km as the appropriate 

radius depends on a variety of factors 

for each burn, including the type of 

development, temperature, humidity, 

wind conditions, size of the planned 

burn, risk tolerance of those 

implementing the burn, and other 

factors. For the SSA, we chose an 

intermediate value, 5 km, in which to 

examine current and predicted future 

development. In choosing this concrete 

value, we acknowledged that this 

number is in reality quite variable, and 

some burns will need to consider areas 

greater or less than 5 km away, but this 

value allowed us to gain a general 

understanding of the risks of 

development on managing surrounding 

populations. 

Within a 5-km radius around the 

Florida golden aster occurrences, we 

used geographic information systems 

(GIS) to examine current and projected 

urbanization and roads. Urbanization 

data came from the SLEUTH model, and 

road data was available from the Florida 

Department of Transportation. The 

SLEUTH model has previously been 

used to predict probabilities of 

urbanization across the Southeastern 

United States in 10-year increments, 

and the resulting GIS data are freely 

available (Belyea and Terrando 2013, 

entire). For our 20-year future 

projection, we used the SLEUTH data 

sets from the years 2020 and 2040 and 

examined the area predicted, with at 

least 80 percent probability, to be 

urbanized. Our assessment was both 

quantitative, calculating the area within 

the 5-km buffer surrounding each 

population that was urbanized at each 

time point, and qualitative, inspecting 

the distribution of urbanization and 

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

urbanization concentrated to one side of 

the population or completely 

surrounding it?). With this quantitative 

and qualitative assessment, we 

categorized populations as having either 

a low risk or a high risk of development 

impacting the ability to manage the 

population. 

These two aspects of future 

management—(1) management 

resources and willingness of the entity 

to manage and (2) impacts of 

surrounding development on 

management—interacted in our future 

scenarios in the following way: with 

decreases in management effort 

(compared to management for stable 

populations), population resiliency 

decreased one level. With management 

for stability, population resiliency 

stayed the same as the current condition 

resiliency when there was low risk of 

development impacts; but where there 

was a high risk, resiliency decreased 

one level, reflecting that management 

will be more challenging with higher 

risk from development. With increases 

in management effort, population 

resiliency increased when there was low 

risk of development impacts, but stayed 

the same when there was a high risk; the 

increased management effort canceled 

out the increased risk caused by 

development. 

Future Condition—Future Scenarios 

Status Quo 

Under the Status Quo scenario, no 

new protected areas were acquired and 

no new populations were introduced. 

Management efforts for all populations 

were maintained at current levels, 

assuming that the ability to manage 

would not be hampered by funding or 

political issues, climate change, or other 

factors. As discussed above, currently 

there are 30 known extant populations, 

natural and introduced, occurring in 5 

counties (Hardee, Highlands, 

Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas). Of 

these, 25 populations occur entirely or 

mostly on 22 protected sites, 

‘‘protected’’ referring to a site that was 

acquired in fee simple and placed into 

long-term conservation by a 

nongovernmental, local, State, or 

Federal entity, or a conservation 

easement or other binding land 

agreement by the site owner that shows 

a commitment to its conservation in 

perpetuity, and this scenario assumes 

that that commitment will be honored. 

Of the introductions since 2008, all had 

reached sizes >1,000 plants except for 

the populations at Duette Preserve (2 

populations, North and South). 

Pessimistic 

Under the Pessimistic scenario, 

management effort on all populations 

decreased, presumably as an effect of a 

wide-scale change in priorities or 

resources, resulting in a drop in 

resiliency scores across the board. 

Additionally, based on uncertainty in 

whether populations on non-protected 

lands would continue to be managed in 

a way that is compatible with continued 

Florida golden aster persistence, in this 

scenario all populations on nonprotected lands were assumed to be lost 

due to presumed land use or 

management change. As with the Status 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33188 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Quo scenario, no new protected areas 

were acquired, and no new populations 

were introduced. 

Targeted Conservation 

Under the Targeted Conservation 

scenario, populations with high and 

very high resiliency were managed to 

maintain their rank; in cases where 

populations had a high risk of 

development limiting the ability to 

manage, this involved an increase in 

management effort compared to what 

would be needed to maintain the same 

level of resiliency for a population with 

a low risk of development impacts. 

Populations with currently moderate 

resiliency on protected lands received 

management effort increases to either 

move them into the high-resiliency class 

(low risk from development) or 

maintain moderate resiliency (high risk 

from development). Conservation 

resources were steered towards 

maintaining and growing these larger 

populations, and not as much towards 

rescuing populations that currently have 

low resiliency. Additionally, five new 

sites were selected across the species’ 

range in which to introduce new 

populations, thus improving species 

redundancy. 

Likelihood of Scenarios 

Of these three scenarios, the Status 

Quo scenario is the most likely to occur, 

although the Targeted Conservation 

scenario represents a likely future if 

both habitat-focused management 

(prescribed burning and mechanical or 

manual habitat management) by a 

variety of partners/managing entities 

and species-specific conservation 

(captive propagation and introductions) 

are prioritized and well-funded. The 

Pessimistic scenario was unlikely; given 

that Florida golden aster populations 

span so many different ownerships, it is 

unlikely that all of the different 

managing entities will develop the land 

especially when there are other cooccurring threatened, endangered, and 

candidate species occupying the same 

habitat (e.g., Florida scrub-jay, 

Aphelocoma coerulescens; eastern 

indigo snake, Drymarchon couperi; 

gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus). 

The Targeted Conservation scenario was 

not likely with current conservation 

resources, but could reflect a likely 

future if both habitat-focused 

management (e.g., prescribed burning) 

by a variety of partners/managing 

entities and species-specific 

conservation (e.g., captive propagation 

and introductions) are prioritized and 

well-funded. 

Future Resiliency 

Future (20 years) resiliency of Florida 

golden aster populations under three 

scenarios was summarized in the SSA 

(Table 3). As implied by the scenario 

name, resiliency of populations under 

the Pessimistic scenario was predicted 

to be poor, with only 7 highly resilient 

populations, a decrease from 18 

currently highly or very highly resilient 

populations. Under the Status Quo 

scenario, we expected resiliency to drop 

to 12 highly or very highly resilient 

populations due solely to the effect of 

development limiting the ability to 

adequately manage habitat. Under the 

Targeted Conservation scenario, focused 

management and conservation efforts to 

counteract detrimental effects of 

urbanization, grow existing populations, 

and introduce new populations were 

expected to result in significant gains in 

resilient populations, with an increase 

from 18 to 27 highly or very highly 

resilient populations expected. 

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

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

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 .............................................................................................. NA 4 7 4 

Future Redundancy and Representation 

Redundancy 20 years in the future 

was expected to decrease compared to 

current condition under the Status Quo 

and Pessimistic Scenarios. In all 

scenarios, the majority of highly and 

very highly resilient populations were 

found in Hillsborough and Manatee 

Counties. All redundancy of highly 

resilient populations in Pinellas County 

and the Hardee and Highlands Counties 

cluster is lost under the Pessimistic 

scenario. In the Status Quo scenario, 

where drops in resiliency were due to 

development risks to management, no 

highly resilient populations remained in 

the heavily urbanized Pinellas County. 

Even in the Targeted Conservation 

Scenario, redundancy within Pinellas 

County did not improve, but both the 

number and distribution of highly 

resilient populations in the other two 

clusters did improve. 

As in the Current Condition section of 

this preamble, we did not assess 

representation in the future due to a 

present lack of information needed to 

delineate representative units. 

Recovery Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Recovery plans must, to the 

maximum extent practicable, include 

‘‘objective, measurable criteria which, 

when met, would result in a 

determination, in accordance with the 

provisions [of section 4 of the Act], that 

the species be removed from the list.’’ 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

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

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33189 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all of the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

The recovery plan for the Florida 

golden aster was issued by the Service 

on August 29, 1988. The primary 

objective of the recovery plan was to 

provide sufficient habitat for the Florida 

golden aster, both through protection of 

the sites and proper vegetation 

management. The plan called for 

establishment of new populations of the 

species. Reclassification of this species 

to threatened could be considered if 10 

geographically distinct populations 

were established in its 3 native counties. 

Delisting could be considered if 20 such 

populations were secured (USFWS 

1988, p. 3). Currently, Florida golden 

aster occurs in 30 geographically 

distinct populations across 5 counties, 

and 18 of these populations are high or 

very high resiliency, as consistent with 

delisting criteria (see Table 2 in 

discussion above). 

Determination of Florida Golden Aster 

Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ 

or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines 

an endangered species as a species that 

is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range,’’ 

and a threatened species as a species 

that is ‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ For a more detailed 

discussion on the factors considered 

when determining whether a species 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species or a threatened species and our 

analysis on how we determine the 

foreseeable future in making these 

decisions, please see Analytical 

Framework, above. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under section 4(a)(1) factors, 

we find that the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat (Factor A), 

which was the basis for listing the 

species, is no longer a threat. At the 

time of listing, Florida golden aster was 

thought to persist only in Hillsborough 

County. Now, the species is known to 

occur in four additional counties: 

Hardee, Highlands, Mantee, and 

Pinellas Counties. While destruction 

and modification of habitat is still the 

primary threat, its magnitude has been 

greatly reduced since listing. Further, 

under the recovery plan for the species, 

delisting could be considered if 20 

populations were secured. The number 

of known extant populations 

(NatureServe 2004) has increased from 9 

(1986) to 30 (2017) as a result of 

additional surveys, habitat restoration, 

and outplanting within the historical 

range of the species. Of those 30 

populations, 25 are located on protected 

conservation lands, 22 of which have 

been determined to have at least 

moderate resiliency. We expect current 

levels of management to continue on 

these conservation lands at these 

locations and anticipate the number of 

individuals within the populations to 

increase. Thus, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

the Florida golden aster no longer meets 

the Act’s definition of an endangered 

species. 

For the determination of whether the 

species is likely be become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range, and thus meet the 

definition of a threatened species, we 

considered the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ as 

20 years into the future under the three 

hypothetical future scenarios. Under all 

three scenarios evaluated, Florida 

golden aster is expected to continue to 

persist across its currently known range. 

Under the status quo scenario, which is 

also the most likely to occur, 12 

populations are projected to be high/ 

very high resiliency and 11 moderate— 

across all 3 geographic clusters, as 

habitat modification is no longer a 

threat for the populations on protected 

lands and current management of those 

lands is expected to continue. Four 

populations (3 natural and 1 

introduced), currently in low condition 

are projected to become extirpated. Even 

under the Pessimistic scenario, which is 

least likely to occur, 7 populations are 

projected to be in high condition and 11 

in moderate condition, all on protected 

lands with conservation management 

expected to continue at some level. 

Given that the majority of populations 

projected to remain extant, and with at 

least moderate resiliency, at the end of 

the projection period are on protected 

lands managed for scrub habitat, it is 

unlikely the species will become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Because we have 

determined that the species is not in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range, we will consider 

whether there are any significant 

portions of its range in which the 

species is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future—that is, whether there is any 

portion of the species’ range for which 

both (1) the portion is significant; and, 

(2) the species is in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address the 

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

question first. Regardless of which 

question we address first, if we reach a 

negative answer with respect to the first 

question for a certain portion of the 

species’ range, we do not need to 

evaluate the other question for that 

portion of the species’ range. 

For Florida golden aster, we chose to 

evaluate the status question (i.e., 

identifying portions where Florida 

golden aster may be in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future) first. We considered 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in any portion of the 

species’ range at a biologically 

meaningful scale now or in the 

foreseeable future. We examined the 

following threats: Development and 

climate change, including cumulative 

effects. Currently, there are 30 known 

extant Florida golden aster populations 

occurring in 5 counties (Hillsborough, 

Manatee, Pinellas, Highlands, and 

Hardee Counties) with 25 of these 

populations occurring on conservation 

lands (Federal, State, and conservation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33190 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

easements). Climate change, as 

discussed above, is primarily acting 

upon the species across its range, except 

for sea level rise, which would only 

potentially affect one population at Fort 

De Soto County Park in Pinellas County. 

As this would potentially impact just a 

single population out of 30 populations, 

we do not consider this concentration of 

threats to be at a biologically meaningful 

scale. 

Although development is currently 

concentrated in Pinellas County, that 

activity would negatively impact in the 

foreseeable future only five populations, 

which occur on private lands or along 

roadways or railroad lines. However, 

two of these populations have high and 

moderate resiliency (the remaining three 

populations have low resiliency), and 

this pattern will continue in the future. 

The Pinellas County populations are 

currently in low condition, and some 

may become extirpated in the 

foreseeable future due to development. 

Therefore, our examination leads us to 

find that there is substantial information 

that the Pinellas County populations 

may become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future. 

We then proceeded to consider 

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

the Pinellas County populations) is 

significant. For the purposes of this 

analysis, the Service is considering 

significant portions of the range by 

applying any reasonable definition of 

‘‘significant.’’ We assessed whether any 

portions of the range may be 

biologically meaningful in terms of the 

resiliency, redundancy, or 

representation of the entity being 

evaluated. This approach is consistent 

with the Act, our implementing 

regulations, our policies, and case law. 

Currently, the Pinellas County 

populations are introduced populations 

and represent a small portion (less than 

10 percent based on current extant 

populations) of the species’ range. 

Further, these populations were all 

introduced after listing (i.e., are not 

naturally occurring populations) and are 

not contributing much to the viability of 

the species. If these populations become 

extirpated, the Florida golden aster 

would lose some redundancy, but the 

loss of this portion of the species’ range 

would still leave sufficient resiliency 

(populations with moderate to high 

resiliency), redundancy, and 

representation in the remainder of the 

species’ range such that it would not 

notably reduce overall viability of the 

species. Therefore, these populations do 

not represent a significant portion of the 

species’ range. 

We conclude that the Florida golden 

aster is not in danger of extinction nor 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future in a significant portion of its 

range. This approach is consistent with 

the courts’ holdings in Desert Survivors 

v. Department of the Interior, No. 16– 

cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

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

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial data available 

indicates that Florida golden aster is not 

in danger of extinction nor likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we find that Florida golden 

aster does not meet the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species, and 

we propose to remove Florida golden 

aster from the List. 

Effects of This Proposed Rule 

This proposal, if made final, would 

revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove 

Florida golden aster from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. The prohibitions and 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, would no longer apply to this species. 

Federal agencies would no longer be 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act in the event 

that activities they authorize, fund, or 

carry out may affect Florida golden 

aster. There is no critical habitat 

designated for this species. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

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

to monitor for not less than 5 years the 

status of all species that are delisted 

due. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) 

refers to activities undertaken to verify 

that a species delisted due to recovery 

remains secure from the risk of 

extinction after the protections of the 

Act no longer apply. The primary goal 

of PDM is to monitor the species to 

ensure that its status does not 

deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, 

to take measures to halt the decline so 

that proposing it as a threatened or 

endangered species is not again needed. 

If at any time during the monitoring 

period, data indicate that protective 

status under the Act should be 

reinstated, we can initiate listing 

procedures, including, if appropriate, 

emergency listing. At the conclusion of 

the monitoring period, we will review 

all available information to determine if 

re-listing, the continuation of 

monitoring, or the termination of 

monitoring is appropriate. 

Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly 

requires that we cooperate with the 

States in development and 

implementation of PDM programs. 

However, we remain ultimately 

responsible for compliance with section 

4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively 

engaged in all phases of PDM. We also 

seek active participation of other 

entities that are expected to assume 

responsibilities for the species’ 

conservation after delisting. 

Concurrent with this proposed 

delisting rule, we announce the draft 

PDM plan’s availability for public 

review at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket Number FWS–R4–ES– 

2019–0071. We seek information, data, 

and comments from the public 

regarding Florida golden aster and the 

PDM plan. We are also seeking peer 

review of the draft PDM plan 

concurrently with this comment period. 

We anticipate finalizing the PDM plan, 

considering all public and peer review 

comments, prior to making a final 

determination on the proposed delisting 

rule. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Proposed Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all proposed rules in 

plain language. This means that each 

proposed rule we publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help revise the proposed rule, 

your comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act need 

not be prepared in connection with 

determining and implementing a 

species’ listing status under the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33191 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

There are no Tribal interests affected by 

this proposal. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket 

Number FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are staff members of the Service’s 

Southeastern Region Recovery Team 

and the North Florida Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the 

entry for ‘‘Chrysopsis floridana’’ under 

‘‘Flowering Plants’’ on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants. 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12741 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 210617–0133] 

RIN 0648–BK24 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery; Framework 

Adjustment 61 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

approve and implement Framework 

Adjustment 61 to the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. 

This rule would revise the status 

determination criteria for Georges Bank 

and Southern New England-Mid 

Atlantic winter flounder, implement a 

revised rebuilding plan for white hake, 

set or adjust catch limits for 17 of the 

20 multispecies (groundfish) stocks, and 

implement a universal exemption for 

sectors to target Acadian redfish. This 

action is necessary to respond to 

updated scientific information and to 

achieve the goals and objectives of the 

fishery management plan. The proposed 

measures are intended to help prevent 

overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, 

achieve optimum yield, and ensure that 

management measures are based on the 

best scientific information available. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2021–0061 

by the following method: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA– 

NMFS–2021–0061 in the Search box. 

Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete 

the required fields, and enter or attach 

your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by us. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

Copies of Framework Adjustment 61, 

including the draft Environmental 

Assessment, the Regulatory Impact 

Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act Analysis prepared by the New 

England Fishery Management Council 

in support of this action, are available 

from Thomas A. Nies, Executive 

Director, New England Fishery 

Management Council, 50 Water Street, 

Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The 

supporting documents are also 

accessible via the internet at: http://

www.nefmc.org/management-plans/ 

northeast-multispecies or http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz 

Sullivan, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 

978–282–8493; email: Liz.Sullivan@

noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

1. Summary of Proposed Measures 

2. Status Determination Criteria 

3. Rebuilding Plan for White Hake 

4. Fishing Year 2021 Shared U.S./ 

Canada Quotas 

5. Catch Limits for Fishing Years 2021– 

2023 

6. Universal Sector Exemption for 

Acadian Redfish (redfish) 

1. Summary of Proposed Measures 

This action would implement the 

management measures in Framework 

Adjustment 61 to the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). The New England Fishery 

Management Council reviewed the 

proposed regulations and deemed them 

consistent with, and necessary to 

implement, Framework 61 in a June 10, 

2021, letter from Council Chairman Dr. 

John Quinn to Regional Administrator 

Michael Pentony. Under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act), we are required to publish 

proposed rules for comment after 

determining whether they are consistent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS