Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46691 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 90 as 

follows: 

PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE 

RADIO SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 90 

continues to read: 

Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), 

and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 

303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of 

the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, 126 Stat. 156. 

■ 2. Section 90.532 is amended by 

revising the section heading, 

designating the undesignated paragraph 

as paragraph (a), adding a paragraph 

heading to newly designated paragraph 

(a), and adding paragraphs (b) through 

(f) to read as follows: 

§ 90.532 Licensing of the 758–769 MHz and 

788–799 MHz Bands; State opt-out election 

and alternative plans. 

(a) First Responder Network Authority 

license and renewal. * * * 

(b) State election to opt out of the First 

Responder Network Authority 

Nationwide Network. No later than 90 

days after receipt of notice from the 

First Responder Network Authority 

under section 6302(e)(1) of the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012, Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat. 156 

(Spectrum Act), any State Governor or 

the Governor’s designee shall file with 

the Commission a notification of the 

Governor’s election to opt out and 

conduct its own deployment of a State 

radio access network pursuant to 

section 6302(e)(2)(B) of the Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. 

This notification shall be sent to a 

dedicated email address specified by the 

Commission or via certified mail to the 

Secretary’s office. At the conclusion of 

the opt-out notification period, the 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau shall issue one or more Public 

Notices denoting which states have 

elected to opt out. In addition: 

(1) Such notification shall also certify 

that the State has notified the First 

Responder Network Authority and the 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration of its 

election. 

(2) If such notice is filed by the 

Governor’s designee, it shall include 

memorialization of the Governor’s 

delegation of authority in writing with 

the notice. 

(c) Petitions for leave to intervene. 

Entities other than the First Responder 

Network Authority, the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, and the relevant state 

may petition the Commission for leave 

to intervene. Such a petition must be 

made within 30 days of the Public 

Notice issued in conformance with 

paragraph (b) of this section. The 

petition must note the specific plan on 

which the filer wishes to comment and 

clearly detail the filer’s interest in the 

proceeding. This includes an 

explanation of the filer’s interest in the 

outcome of the particular state’s 

application, as well as an explanation of 

how the filer’s interests are not 

otherwise represented by the state, 

FirstNet, or NTIA, or how its 

participation would otherwise aid the 

Commission in a full evaluation of the 

facts. 

(d) Filing of alternative state plans by 

states electing to opt out. No later than 

240 days after filing notice of a State’s 

election with the Commission under 

paragraph (b) of this section, the State 

Governor or the Governor’s designee 

shall file an alternative plan with the 

Commission for the construction, 

maintenance, operation, and 

improvements of the State radio access 

network. Alternative plans may be sent 

to a dedicated email address specified 

by the Commission or via certified mail 

to the Office of the Secretary. 

(e) Contents of alternative state plans. 

An alternative state plan shall include: 

(1) An interoperability showing, 

demonstrating: 

(i) Compliance with the minimum 

technical interoperability requirements 

developed under section 6203 of the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012; and 

(ii) Interoperability with the 

nationwide public safety broadband 

network. 

(2) Certifications by the State 

Governor or the Governor’s designee, 

attesting: 

(i) Adherence to FirstNet network 

policies identified by FirstNet as 

relating to technical interoperability; 

and 

(ii) Completion of the state’s request 

for proposal within 180 days of receipt 

of notice of the State Plan furnished by 

the First Responder Network Authority. 

Such certification may only be made if 

the state has: 

(A) Issued a request for proposal for 

the state’s Radio Access Network; 

(B) Received bids for such network; 

and 

(C) Selected a vendor(s). 

(f) Commenting on alternative state 

plans. Within 10 business days of the 

submission of an alternative state plan 

the Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau shall determine 

whether the plan is acceptable for filing 

under the criteria set forth under 

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. 

The Bureau shall issue a Public Notice 

identifying each plan that has been 

accepted for filing and initiating an 

abbreviated comment cycle. 

(1) The First Responder Network 

Authority, the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, and any entity granted 

party status under paragraph (c) of this 

section may file comments within 15 

days of the issuance of the Public Notice 

set forth in this paragraph (f). 

(2) The relevant state may file reply 

comments within 30 days of the 

issuance of the Public Notice set forth 

in this paragraph (f). 

(3) States can file the plans, and those 

granted party status to each proceeding 

may file comments on the plan, in the 

specified state docket via a dedicated 

email address specified by the 

Commission or via certified mail to the 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21596 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0090; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BB48 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Dalea carthagenensis var. 

floridana (Florida Prairie-clover), and 

Threatened Species Status for 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense (Everglades Bully), 

Digitaria pauciflora (Florida Pineland 

Crabgrass), and Chamaesyce deltoidea 

ssp. pinetorum (Pineland Sandmat) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

endangered species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for Dalea carthagenensis 

var. floridana (Florida prairie-clover), 

and threatened species status for 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense (Everglades bully), 

Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland 

crabgrass), and Chamaesyce deltoidea 

ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat). All 

four plant species are endemic to south 

Florida. This rule adds these species to 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46692 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

6, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov. Comments and 

materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in 

person, by appointment, during normal 

business hours at: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, South Florida 

Ecological Services Field Office, 1339 

20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; 

telephone 772–562–3909; facsimile 

772–562–4288. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roxanna Hinzman, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, South Florida 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES, above). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if we determine that a species 

is an endangered or threatened species 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, we are required to promptly 

publish a proposal in the Federal 

Register and make a determination on 

our proposal within 1 year. Listing a 

species as an endangered or threatened 

species can only be completed by 

issuing a rule. 

This rule makes final the listing of 

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

(Florida prairie-clover) as an 

endangered species, and Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense 

(Everglades bully), Digitaria pauciflora 

(Florida pineland crabgrass), and 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

(pineland sandmat) as threatened 

species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

based on any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

We have determined that the threats 

to Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

consist primarily of habitat loss and 

modification through urban and 

agricultural development, and lack of 

adequate fire management (Factor A); 

and the proliferation of nonnative 

invasive plants, stochastic events 

(hurricanes, storm surge, wildfires), 

maintenance practices used on 

roadsides and disturbed sites, and sea 

level rise (Factor E). Existing regulatory 

mechanisms have not been adequate to 

reduce or remove these threats (Factor 

D). 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought comments from independent 

specialists to ensure that our decision is 

based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We invited 

these peer reviewers to comment on our 

listing proposal, and we received 

comments from three peer reviewers. 

We also considered all comments and 

information we received from the public 

during the comment period. 

Previous Federal Action 

Please refer to the proposed listing 

rule for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

(81 FR 70282; October 11, 2016) for a 

detailed description of previous Federal 

actions concerning these species. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

October 11, 2016 (81 FR 70282), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by December 12, 2016. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. Newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment were 

published in the Miami Herald and Key 

West Citizen. We did not receive any 

requests for a public hearing. 

Also, in accordance with our peer 

review policy published on July 1, 1994 

(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert 

opinion from three knowledgeable 

individuals with scientific expertise that 

included familiarity with the four 

species and their habitat, biological 

needs, and threats. We received 

responses from all three peer reviewers. 

All substantive information provided 

during the comment period has either 

been incorporated directly into this final 

determination or is addressed below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the listing of Sideroxylon reclinatum 

ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 

pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis 

var. floridana. The peer reviewers 

generally concurred with our methods 

and conclusions, and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

rule. We reviewed all comments 

received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the listing of the four plants. 

Where appropriate, we have 

incorporated corrections, editorial 

suggestions, and new literature and 

other information provided into the 

final rule. Any substantive comments 

are discussed below. 

Comment: One peer reviewer 

indicated that recent studies suggest 

some previously known taxonomic 

indicators are not reliable to distinguish 

between Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

reclinatum and S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense. Therefore, survey 

results from Big Cypress National Park 

(BCNP) cited in the proposed rule may 

have significantly underestimated S. 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense 

distribution and abundance. The 

reviewer also indicated that given the 

large number of individuals and more 

widespread distribution created by the 

recent taxonomic evaluation of this 

taxon, the Service does not have 

adequate information to support 

classifying this taxon as threatened. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

information and agree that if taxonomic 

indicators do not reliably distinguish 

between Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

reclinatum and S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, then S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense’s distribution and 

abundance may be greater than survey 

results cited in the proposed rule. We 

have incorporated the additional 

information on S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense’s distribution in BCNP 

into this rule in the ‘‘Current Range, 

Population Estimates, and Status’’ 

(Table 1) section for the subspecies. 

However, despite recent taxonomic 

changes that may result in greater 

abundance and distribution for S. 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, we 

have determined that the subspecies 

qualifies as threatened. This is because 

sea level rise is projected to have 

profound negative effects on S. 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense and all 

of its habitat throughout its range in the 

foreseeable future, even when the 

additional distribution is considered. 

Decades prior to inundation, pine 

rocklands and marl prairies are likely to 

undergo habitat transitions related to 

climate change, including changes to 

hydrology and increasing vulnerability 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46693 

to storm surge, rendering these areas 

unsuitable for S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense. 

Public Comments 

We received one public comment 

with new information on the historical 

distribution of Chamaesyce deltaoidea 

spp. pinetorum; we have incorporated 

this information into the final rule. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

In the Background section, we made 

the following changes based on peer 

review and public comments: 

(1) We incorporated new information 

on the life history, site locations, 

abundance and distribution of Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana, 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

Austrofloridense, Digitaria 

pauciflora,and Chamaesyce deltoidea 

ssp. Pinetorum as appropriate. 

(2) We incorporated new information 

on the ecology and plant species 

composition of pine rockland, marl 

prairie, coastal berm, and rockland 

hammock habitats. 

(3) We incorporated new information 

regarding ex situ conservation for Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Digitaria pauciflora. 

(4) We incorporated new information 

on the taxonomic indicators of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense used in comparison 

with the similar subspecies S. 

reclinatum ssp. reclinatum. 

In the Summary of Factors Affecting 

the Species section, we made the 

following changes: 

(5) We incorporated new information 

regarding the threat of scale insects and 

Cassytha filiformis infestations on Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana. 

(6) We clarified our discussion of 

regulatory protection for State-listed 

plants on private lands through FAC 

5B–40. 

(7) We clarified our discussion of 

restoration management to indicate it 

only be conducted by highly trained 

crews. 

(8) We incorporated new information 

regarding potential drier conditions in 

response to hydrological restoration 

within the Everglades. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense (Everglades bully) 

Species Description 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense is a single to manystemmed shrub, 3 to 6 feet (ft) (1 to 2 

meters (m)) tall (Corogin and Judd 2014, 

pp. 410–412). The branches are smooth, 

slightly bent, and somewhat spiny. The 

leaves are thin, oval-shaped, 0.8 to 2 

inches (in) (2 to 5 centimeters (cm)) 

long, evergreen, lance-shaped, and fuzzy 

on their undersides. The flowers are in 

axillary clusters (Long and Lakela 1971, 

p. 679). 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense is distinguished from 

the similar subspecies S. reclinatum ssp. 

reclinatum in Florida by its leaves, 

which are persistently pubescent (fuzzy) 

on their undersides, rather than smooth 

or pubescent only along the leaf 

midvein (Wunderlin and Hansen 2003, 

p. 603). In addition, the two subspecies 

are more reliably distinguished by 

differences in the micromorphology of 

the leaf epidermis, and by the extent of 

distribution of S. r. ssp. 

austrofloridense, which is limited to 

extreme southern peninsular Florida 

(Corogin and Judd 2014, p. 404). 

Taxonomy 

The genus Sideroxylon is represented 

by eight species in Florida. All of these 

plants were previously assigned to the 

genus Bumelia. Sideroxylon reclinatum, 

the Florida bully, is represented by 

three subspecies that range nearly 

throughout Florida and into neighboring 

states. The Everglades subspecies was 

first recognized by Whetstone (1985, pp. 

544–547) as Bumelia reclinata var. 

austrofloridense, then transferred to the 

genus Sideroxylon (Kartesz and Gandhi 

1990, pp. 421–427). Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense was 

made a subspecies rather than a variety 

(Kartesz and Gandhi 1990, pp. 421– 

427); in plant nomenclature, the ranks 

of variety and subspecies are 

interchangeable. Sideroxylon reclinatum 

ssp. austrofloridense is used in the 

current treatment of the Florida flora 

(Wunderlin and Hansen 2016, p. 1). 

The online Atlas of Florida Vascular 

Plants (Wunderlin and Hansen 2016, p. 

1), Integrated Taxonomic System (ITIS 

2016, p. 1), NatureServe (2016, p. 1), 

and the Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services 

(FDACS) (Coile and Garland 2003, p. 19) 

indicate that Sideroxylon reclinatum 

ssp. austrofloridense is the accepted 

taxonomic status. 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense is differentiated from S. 

reclinatum ssp. reclinatum by a set of 

distinct characters at the 

micromorphological level (Corogin and 

Judd 2014, p. 408). The two taxa are also 

separated eco-geographically. 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense is a narrow endemic, 

restricted to pine rockland and marl 

prairie habitats in a well-defined area of 

extreme southeast peninsular Florida. 

Conversely, Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

reclinatum is more wide-ranging, 

occurring coastally from southern 

Georgia west to Louisiana, and 

throughout Florida as far south as 

Broward County in the east, and Collier 

and Monroe Counties in the west. The 

only place where plants of both species 

overlap is within BCNP, at the western 

fringe of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense’s range (Corrogin and 

Judd 2014, p. 409). 

Climate 

The climate of south Florida where 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense occurs is classified as 

tropical savanna and is characterized by 

distinct wet and dry seasons and a 

monthly mean temperature above 18 

degrees Celsius (°C) (64.4 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F)) in every month of the 

year (Gabler et al. 1994, p. 211). Freezes 

can occur in the winter months, but are 

infrequent at this latitude in south 

Florida. Rainfall in the area where 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense occurs varies from an 

annual average of 153–165 cm (60–65 

in) in the northern portion of the Miami 

Rock Ridge to an average of 140–153 cm 

(55–60 in) in the southern portion. 

Approximately 75 percent of yearly 

rainfall occurs during the wet season 

from June through September (Snyder et 

al. 1990, p. 238). 

Habitat 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense grows in pine rockland 

habitat, marl prairie habitat and within 

the ecotone between both habitats (Gann 

et al. 2006, p. 12; Bradley et al. 2013, 

p. 4; Gann 2015, p. 31). These habitats 

are maintained by regular fire, and are 

prone, particularly marl prairie, to 

annual flooding for several months 

during the wet season (Gann et al. 2006, 

p. 13; Bradley et al. 2013, p. 4). 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense also grows on the 

sunny edges of rockland hammock 

habitat (Gann 2015, p. 412), which is 

fire-resistant. Historically, fire served to 

maintain the boundary between pine 

rockland and rockland hammock by 

eliminating the encroachment of 

hardwoods into pine rocklands. Absent 

natural or prescribed fire, many pine 

rocklands have succeeded to rockland 

hammock (Florida Natural Area 

Inventory [FNAI] 2010, p. 25). Canopy 

cover on the interior of rockland 

hammock is too dense to support herbs 

and smaller shrub species, such as S. r. 

ssp. austrofloridense, that require more 

sunlight. For a detailed description of 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46694 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

pine rockland, marl prairie, and 

rockland hammock habitats, please see 

the proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282; 

October 11, 2016). 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense occurs in sparsely 

vegetated, well-lit, open areas that are 

maintained by disturbance. However, 

the dynamic nature of the habitat means 

that areas not currently open may 

become open in the future as a result of 

canopy disruption from hurricanes or 

invasive plant management, while areas 

currently open may develop more dense 

canopy over time, eventually rendering 

that portion of the hammock unsuitable 

for S. r. ssp. austrofloridense. 

Historical Range 

The historical range of Sideroxlon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense is 

limited to Collier, Miami-Dade, and 

Monroe Counties, Florida. In MiamiDade County, the plant was known from 

central and southern Miami-Dade 

County along the Miami Rock Ridge, 

which extends from Long Pine Key in 

the Everglades northward through urban 

Miami to the Miami River. In Monroe 

County, the plant is known from BCNP 

on the mainland, and was collected as 

far south as Key Largo, in the Florida 

Keys. In Collier County, the subspecies 

has been recorded only within BCNP. 

All known historical and current 

records for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense are summarized below 

in Table 1. 

Current Range, Population Estimates, 

and Status 

The current range of Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense is 

BCNP, the Long Pine Key region of ENP, 

and pine rocklands adjacent to ENP 

(Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 42; Gann 

et al. 2006, p. 11; Bradley 2007, pers. 

comm.; Possley 2011a and 2011b, pers. 

comm.; Sadle 2011, pers. comm.; 

Bradley et al. 2013, p. 4; Gann 2015, p. 

30). The subspecies is apparently 

extirpated from Key Largo. Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense has not 

been found in surveys of pine rocklands 

on Key Largo, Big Pine Key, Cudjoe Key 

and Lower Sugarloaf Key (Hodges and 

Bradley 2006, p. 42). The current range 

is approximately 42 mi (67.5 km) (Gann 

et al. 2002, p. 526; Corogin and Judd 

2014, p. 412). 

The largest population occurs at Long 

Pine Key in ENP (Hodges and Bradley 

2006, p. 42; Gann et al. 2006, p. 11; 

Gann 2015, p. 9). The population at 

Long Pine Key is estimated at between 

10,000–100,000 plants (Gann et al. 

2006, pp. 9–11; Gann 2015, p. 29). 

Recent surveys of ENP have identified 

14 occurrences of Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense in Long 

Pine Key, expanding the known range in 

ENP (Gann 2015, p. 30). 

In Miami-Dade County, outside ENP, 

pine rocklands tracts are orders of 

magnitude smaller and exist in a matrix 

of agricultural, commercial, and 

residential development. Approximately 

73 plants were observed at Larry and 

Penny Thompson Park, within the 

Richmond Pine Rocklands (Possley and 

McSweeney 2005, p. 1). Extant 

populations have been found at Quail 

Roost Pineland (two plants), Navy Wells 

Pineland Preserve (four plants), and 

Sunny Palms Pinelands (two plants) 

(Possley 2011a and 2011b, pers. comm.). 

The subspecies has been observed in 

pine rocklands at Grant Hammock and 

Pine Ridge Sanctuary (Bradley et al. 

2013, p.1). The subspecies no longer 

occurs at the Nixon-Smiley Preserve. 

Surveys in the Gum Slough region of 

Lostmans Pines in BCNP reported 

finding Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense with limited 

distribution within the study area 

(Bradley et al. 2013, pp. 1–8). However, 

Sadle (2016, pers. comm.) suggests that 

additional taxonomic research on 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. reclinatum 

may indicate that S. r. ssp. 

austrofloridense is more widespread in 

BCNP than is currently known. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF THE KNOWN OCCURRENCES OF SIDEROXYLON RECLINATUM SSP. 

AUSTROFLORIDENSE

Population Ownership Most recent population estimate (year) Status 

Everglades National Park ........................ National Park Service ............................ 10,000–100,000 1 (2013) ........................ Extant. 

Camp Everglades .................................... Boy Scouts of America .......................... Unknown ................................................ Extant.2

Big Cypress National Preserve ............... National Park Service ............................ extant (2013) 3 ........................................ Extant. 

Larry and Penny Thompson Park ........... Miami-Dade County ............................... 73 (2005) 4 .............................................. Extant. 

Nixon-Smiley Preserve ............................ Miami-Dade County ............................... 0 (Unknown) 3 ......................................... Extirpated. 

Navy Wells Pineland Preserve ................ Miami-Dade County ............................... 4 (2011) 5 ................................................ Extant. 

Frog Pond ................................................ South Florida Water Management District.1 (2015) 1 2 ............................................. Extant. 

Sunny Palms Pineland ............................ Miami-Dade County ............................... 2 (2011) 5 ................................................ Extant. 

Pine Ridge Sanctuary ............................. Private .................................................... Unknown ................................................ Extant.3

Lucille Hammock ..................................... Miami-Dade County ............................... 11–100 (2007) 3 ...................................... Extant. 

South Dade Wetlands ............................. Miami-Dade County ............................... Unknown (2007) 3 ................................... Extant. 

Natural Forest Community #P–300 ......... Private .................................................... 2–10 (2007) 3 .......................................... Extant. 

Natural Forest Community #P–310 ......... Private .................................................... 11–100 (2007) 3 ...................................... Extant. 

Quail Roost Pineland .............................. Miami-Dade County ............................... 2 (2011) 5 ................................................ Extant. 

Grant Hammock ...................................... Unknown ................................................ Unknown (Unknown) .............................. Extirpated.3

Key Largo ................................................ Unknown ................................................ No estimate (1948) ................................ Extirpated.6

1 Gann 2015, p. 29. 2 Lange 2016, pers. comm. 3 Bradley et al. 2013, pp. 1–8. 4 Possley and McSweeney 2005, p. 1. 5 Possley 2011a and 2011b, pers. comm. 6 Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 42. 

Biology 

Life History and Reproduction: Little 

is known about the life history of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, including pollination 

biology, seed production, or dispersal 

(Gann 2015, p. 31). Reproduction is 

sexual, with new plants generated from 

seeds. The subspecies produces flowers 

from April to May, and fruit ripens from 

June to July (Corogin and Judd 2014, pp. 

410–412). The plants can stand partial 

inundation with fresh water for a 

portion of the year, but do not tolerate 

salinity. Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46695 

austrofloridense frequently has 

numerous stem galls, but these galls do 

not appear to cause mortality to the 

plant and may in fact be an important 

part of the subspecies’ natural history 

(Lange 2016, pers. comm.). In addition, 

the stem galls are often inhabited by 

acrobat ants (Crematogaster spp.) (Lange 

2016, pers. comm.). 

Fire Ecology and Demography: There 

have been no detailed studies of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense’s relationship to fire; 

however, periodic fire is extremely 

important to maintaining habitat for this 

subspecies (Corogin and Judd 2014, p. 

414). Therefore, historical declines have 

been partially attributed to habitat loss 

from fire suppression or inadequate fire 

management (ENP 2014, p. 173). 

Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland 

crabgrass) 

Species Description 

Digitaria pauciflora is a small 

perennial clump-grass, appearing bluegreen to gray with reddish-brown stems, 

typically 0.5 to 1 m (1.5 to 3 ft) tall 

(Small 1933, p. 51). The leaves form a 

subtle zig-zag pattern as the leaf blades 

come off the stem at an angle. The 

flowers are dull green and very small, 

and are borne on wispy spikes on the 

ends of the leafy stems, with usually 

only a few flower clusters forming per 

clump of grass. Stolons (aboveground 

horizontal stems) are not present 

(Webster and Hatch, 1990, pp. 161–162); 

however, inflorescence branches have 

been known to produce roots 

infrequently at their nodes, and these 

have been observed producing new 

ramets (belowground horizontal stems) 

that allow for vegetative spread (Fellows 

et al. 2003, p. 142; Lange 2016, pers. 

comm.). Digitaria pauciflora is known to 

reproduce sexually (Bradley and Gann 

1999, p. 50), with fruit production in the 

fall (Wendelberger and Maschinski 

2006, p. 3). 

Taxonomy 

Digitaria pauciflora was first 

described in 1928, based on specimens 

collected in 1903 (Bradley and Gann 

1999, p. 49), and was later placed in the 

genus Syntherisma (Small 1933, pp. 50– 

51). Subsequent authors (Hitchcock 

1935, p. 561; Webster & Hatch 1990, p. 

161; Wunderlin 1998) have retained it 

in the genus Digitaria (Bradley and 

Gann 1999, p. 49). D. pauciflora was 

absent from collections from 1939 until 

1973, when it was rediscovered in ENP 

(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49). 

The online Atlas of Florida Vascular 

Plants uses the name Digitaria 

pauciflora (Wunderlin and Hansen 

2016, p. 1). The Integrated Taxonomic 

System (ITIS 2016, p. 1), NatureServe 

(2016, p. 1), and the Florida Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

(FDACS) (Coile and Garland 2003, p. 19) 

indicates that its taxonomic status is 

accepted. We have carefully reviewed 

all taxonomic data to determine that 

Digitaria pauciflora is a valid taxon. The 

only synonym is Syntherisma pauciflora 

(Hitchcock) Hitchcock ex Small (ITIS 

2016, p. 1). 

Climate 

The climate of south Florida where 

Digitaria pauciflora occurs is classified 

as tropical savanna, as described above 

for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense. 

Habitat 

Digitaria pauciflora occurs 

predominantly within the seasonally 

flooded ecotone between pine rockland 

and marl prairie, although the species 

may overlap somewhat into both 

habitats (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49; 

Fellows et al. 2002, p. 79). Plants can 

withstand inundation with fresh water 

for one to several months each year 

(ENP 2014, p. 172). These habitats are 

maintained by regular fire, and are 

prone, particularly marl prairie, to 

annual flooding for several months 

during the wet season (Gann et al. 2006, 

p. 13). Pine rocklands and marl prairies 

are described in detail in the proposed 

listing rule (81 FR 70282; October 11, 

2016). 

Historical Range 

All known historical and current 

records for Digitaria pauciflora are 

summarized below in Table 2. The 

historical range of D. pauciflora consists 

of central and southern Miami-Dade 

County along the Miami Rock Ridge, 

from southern Miami to Long Pine Key 

region of ENP, a range of approximately 

42 mi (67.6 km) (Bradley and Gann 

1999, p. 49). Specimens of D. pauciflora 

were collected early in the 20th century 

throughout Miami-Dade County. The 

plant then went unreported for several 

decades before being rediscovered at 

Long Pine Key in 1973. D. pauciflora 

has subsequently been encountered 

consistently within Long Pine Key 

(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49). 

A single Digitaria pauciflora plant 

was discovered in 1995, within marl 

prairie habitat at the Martinez Pinelands 

in the Richmond Pine Rocklands, an 

area of Miami-Dade County that retains 

the largest contiguous areas of pine 

rockland habitat outside of the 

Everglades. However, this plant has 

since disappeared (Herndon 1998, p. 88; 

Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49; Gann 

2015, p. 142). Three other historical 

occurrences in Miami-Dade County 

have been documented: (1) A site 

between Cutler and Longview Camp 

(last observed in 1903); (2) Jenkins 

Homestead (date unspecified); and (3) 

south Miami (last observed in 1939) 

(Bradley 2007, pers. comm.). However, 

little is known regarding the status of 

these populations. The species was not 

found during a 2-year project to survey 

and map rare and exotic plants along 

Florida Department of Transportation 

(FDOT) rights-of-way within MiamiDade and Monroe Counties (Gordon et 

al. 2007, pp. 1, 38). 

Current Range, Population Estimates, 

and Status 

The current range of Digitaria 

pauciflora includes ENP and BCNP 

(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49; Gann et 

al. 2006, p. 3; Gann 2015, p. 142). 

Ongoing surveys suggest the species 

occurs throughout Long Pine Key of 

ENP (Gann et al. 2006, p. 7; Gann 2015, 

p. 144) and is much wider-ranging than 

previously known in ENP, where 

populations may be characterized as 

abundant (Maschinski and Lange 2015, 

pp. 31–33). 

In 2002, Digitaria pauciflora was 

discovered within the Lostmans Pines 

region of BCNP in Monroe County 

(Bradley et al. 2013, p. 2). This 

represented the first known D. 

pauciflora occurrence outside MiamiDade County (FNAI 2007, p. 191). The 

species is widely distributed within 

Lostmans Pines (Bradley et al. 2013, pp. 

1–8). Subsequent surveys for the species 

within BCNP have documented up to 

nine occurrences, some of which 

contain an estimated 500–600 plants 

(Maschinski et al. 2003, p. 141). Bradley 

et al. (2013, pp. 1–8) conducted surveys 

in the Gum Slough region of Lostmans 

Pines and indicated that the species is 

widely distributed within the study 

area. A total of 2,365 plants were 

counted within pineland and sawgrass 

based survey plots (Bradley et al. 2013, 

pp. 3–4). The rangewide population 

estimate for D. pauciflora is 100,000 to 

200,000 individuals at Long Pine Key 

(Maschinski and Lange 2015, p. 18) and 

greater than 10,000 individuals within 

BCNP (Bradley 2007, pers. comm.). 

Although its preferred habitats are firedependent and flood adapted, largescale wildfire and flooding can 

drastically reduce the size of D. 

pauciflora populations. For example, in 

the spring months of 2016, extensive 

wildfires in areas occupied by D. 

pauciflora likely reduced populations in 

ENP over a greater area than managed 

by prescribed fire in an average year. 

The populations will likely rebound; 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46696 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

however, regeneration could be severely 

hampered, based on the amount and 

duration of flooding during the region’s 

late summer storm season. While 

Digitaria pauciflora populations remain 

abundant within ENP and BCNP, these 

areas represent only half of the species’ 

historical range (Bradley and Gann 

1999, p. 25; Gann 2015, p. 167). While 

D. pauciflora was known to occur 

throughout Miami-Dade County, all 

other populations are likely extirpated. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF THE KNOWN OCCURRENCES OF DIGITARIA PAUCIFLORA

Population Ownership Most recent population estimate Status 

Everglades National Park ........................ National Park Service ............................ 100,000–200,000 (2015) 1 4 ................... Extant. 

Camp Everglades .................................... Boy Scouts of America .......................... 100–1,000 (2016) 2 ................................. Extant. 

Big Cypress National Preserve ............... National Park Service ............................ >10,000 (2007) 3 .................................... Extant. 

Martinez Pineland .................................... Miami-Dade County ............................... 0 (1999) 2 3 ............................................. Extirpated. 

Cutler and Longview Camp ..................... Unknown ................................................ Unknown (1903) 3 ................................... Extirpated. 

Jenkins Homestead ................................. Unknown ................................................ Unknown (date unspecified) 3 ................ Extirpated. 

South Miami ............................................ Unknown ................................................ Unknown (1939) 3 ................................... Extirpated. 

1Gann 2015, p. 142. 

2 Lange 2016, pers. comm. 

3Bradley 2007, pers. comm. 

4 Maschinski and Lange 2015, p. 18. 

Biology 

Life History and Reproduction: Little 

is known about the life history of 

Digitaria pauciflora, including 

pollination biology, seed production, or 

dispersal. Reproduction is sexual, with 

new plants generated from seeds 

(Bradley and Gann, 1999, p. 53). The 

species produces flowers from summer 

to late fall on both new and older 

growth, some plants have been observed 

to finish seeding as late as December 

(Fellows et al. 2002, p. 2; Gann 2015, p. 

172). Plants can also spread clonally via 

rhizomes (Webster and Hatch, 1990, pp. 

161–162). The plants can stand partial 

inundation with fresh water for a 

portion of the year, but do not tolerate 

salinity. 

Fire Ecology and Demography: 

Digitaria pauciflora population 

demographics or longevity have not 

been studied (Bradley and Gann, 1999, 

p. 53; Fellows et al. 2002, p. 2). There 

have been no studies of the plant’s 

relationship to fire; however, periodic 

fire is extremely important to 

maintaining habitat for this species 

(Bradley and Gann, 1999, p. 53; ENP 

2014, p. 226). Therefore, historical 

declines have been partially attributed 

to habitat loss from fire suppression or 

inadequate fire management. The 

species shows patch dynamics, 

colonizing new areas and undergoing 

local extinctions with high rates of 

turnover (Gann 2015, p. 142). Plants 

with ‘‘flashy’’ or ‘‘boom and bust’’ 

demographic patterns are more 

susceptible to stochastic extinction 

events. ENP has burned populations of 

D. pauciflora during the wet and dry 

season, and both appear suitable to 

maintain populations of the plant (ENP 

2014, p. 226). 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

(pineland sandmat) 

Species Description 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

is an ascending to erect perennial herb. 

The stems are hairy and often reddish. 

The leaf blades range from kidneyshaped or triangle-shaped and elliptic to 

oval. The fruit is a 2-mm broad, 

pubescent capsule. The seeds are 1 mm 

long, transversely wrinkled, and 

yellowish in color (Small 1933, p. 795). 

C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum reproduces 

sexually (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 25). 

Fruit production is year-round, with a 

peak in the fall (Wendelberger and 

Maschinski 2006, p. 2). 

Taxonomy 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

was first described by Small in 1905, 

based on specimens collected in eastern 

Miami-Dade County (Small 1905, pp. 

429–430). Initially, Small referred to 

these specimens as C. pinetorum but 

recognized that it was closely related to 

Chamaesyce deltoidea. Herndon (1993, 

pp. 38–51) included C. pinetorum 

within the C. deltoidea complex, which 

is composed of three other taxa, two 

occurring farther north on the Miami 

Rock Ridge, and one occurring on Big 

Pine Key in the lower Florida Keys 

(Monroe County). The three taxa on the 

Miami Rock Ridge have distinct, but 

adjacent, ranges. Subsequently, 

Herndon (1993, pp. 38–51) has placed 

all four taxa at the same taxonomic 

level, treating each as a distinct 

subspecies under Chamaesyce deltoidea 

(C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, C. 

deltoidea ssp. serpyllum, C. deltoidea 

ssp. adhaerens, and C. deltoidea ssp. 

deltoidea). Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

deltoidea and C. deltoidea ssp. 

adhaerens occur north of known C. 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum populations, 

while Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

serpyllum is endemic to Big Pine Key. 

Wunderlin and Hansen (2016, p. 1) 

follow Herndon’s treatment in using C. 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum. Some modern 

authors place the genus Chamaesyce 

into the genus Euphorbia sensu lato 

(Yang and Berry 2011, pp. 1486–1503). 

Gann (2015, p. 168) indicates that if 

placed into the genus Euphorbia, the 

correct name of pineland sandmat is 

Euphorbia deltoidea ssp. pinetorum. 

The online Atlas of Florida Vascular 

Plants uses the name Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Small) 

Herndon (Wunderlin and Hansen 2016, 

p. 1). NatureServe (2016, p. 1) and 

FDACS (Coile and Garland 2003, p. 11) 

indicate that C. deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum is accepted. However, the 

Integrated Taxonomic Information 

System (ITIS 2016, p. 1) accepts 

Euphorbia deltoidea ssp. pinetorum as 

the scientific name for the subspecies 

(Gann 2015, p. 168). We have carefully 

reviewed all taxonomic data to 

determine that C. deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum is a valid taxon. 

Climate 

The climate of south Florida where 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

occurs is classified as tropical savanna, 

as described above for Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense. 

Habitat 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

occurs in pine rocklands (Bradley and 

Gann 1999, p. 24). Pine rocklands are 

maintained by regular fire, and are 

prone to annual flooding for several 

months during the wet season (Gann et 

al. 2006, p. 13). However, C. deltoidea 

ssp. pinetorum generally occurs in 

higher elevation pine rocklands at Long 

Pine Key in ENP, in areas rarely subject 

to flooding (Gann 2015, p. 169). 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46697 

A detailed description of pine 

rockland habitat is discussed in the 

proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282; 

October 11, 2016). 

Historical Range 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

occurred historically only with the 

southern portion of the Miami Rock 

Ridge, from Homestead to the Long Pine 

Key region of ENP, a range of 

approximately 42 mi (67.6 km) (Bradley 

and Gann 1999, p. 24). C. deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum has been encountered 

consistently within Long Pine Key, as 

well as several County-owned 

conservation lands adjacent to the ENP 

(Gann 2015, p. 167). All known 

historical and current records for 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

are summarized in Table 3, below. 

Current Range, Population Estimates, 

and Status 

The current range of Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is similar to 

the historical range, although 98 percent 

of the pine rocklands (the species’ only 

habitat) outside of the ENP has been lost 

to development (Kernan and Bradley 

1996, p. 2). The total population size of 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is 

estimated to be 14,500–146,000 

individuals, with the majority of the 

population occurring on Long Pine Key 

(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 25; Gann 

2015, p. 167). However, while 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is 

most abundant within ENP, pine 

rockland fragments outside of the 

Everglades represent about half the 

subspecies’ extant range (Bradley and 

Gann 1999, p. 25; Bradley 2007, pers. 

comm.; Gann 2015, p. 167). 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF THE KNOWN OCCURRENCES OF CHAMAESYCE DELTOIDEA SSP. PINETORUM

Population Ownership Most recent 

population estimate Status 

Everglades National Park ........................ National Park Service ............................ 10,000–100,000 (2011) 5 ........................ Extant. 

Camp Everglades .................................... Boy Scouts of America .......................... Unknown ................................................ Extant.1

Florida City Pineland ............................... Miami-Dade County ............................... 33 (2009) 2 .............................................. Extant. 

Navy Wells .............................................. Miami-Dade County ............................... 1,000–10,000 (2007) 2 3 ......................... Extant. 

Navy Wells #39 ....................................... Miami-Dade County ............................... 500 or more (2013) 2 .............................. Extant. 

Palm Drive Pineland ................................ Miami-Dade County ............................... 0 (2012) 2 ................................................ Possibly Extirpated. 

Pine Ridge Sanctuary ............................. Private .................................................... 10–100 (2011) 3 4 ................................... Extant. 

Rock Pit #39 ............................................ Miami-Dade County ............................... 419 (2012) 2 ............................................ Extant. 

Seminole Wayside Park .......................... Miami-Dade County ............................... 614 (2015) 2 ............................................ Extant. 

Fuchs Hammock Addition ....................... Miami-Dade County ............................... ∼20 (2011) 2 ............................................ Extant. 

Sunny Palms Pineland ............................ Miami-Dade County ............................... 1,000–10,000 (2015) 2 ............................ Extant. 

John Kunkel Small Pineland ................... Institute for Regional Conservation ....... Present (2006) 2 3 ................................... Extant. 

Natural Forest Community (NFC) P–330 private .................................................... 11–100 (2007) 3 ...................................... Extant. 

NFC P–338 .............................................. private .................................................... 1,001–10,000 (2007) 3 ............................ Extant. 

NFC P–339 .............................................. private .................................................... 11–100 (2007) 3 ...................................... Extant. 

NFCP–347 ............................................... private .................................................... 11–100 (2007) 3 ...................................... Extant. 

NFCP–411 ............................................... private .................................................... 101–1,000 (2007) 3 ................................. Extant. 

NFCP–413 ............................................... private .................................................... 11–100 (2007) 3 ...................................... Extant. 

NFCP–416 ............................................... private .................................................... 11–100 (2007) 3 ...................................... Extant. 

NFCP–445 ............................................... private .................................................... 1,001–10,000 (2007) 3 ............................ Extant. 

1 Lange 2016, pers. comm. 

2Possley 2017, pers. comm. 

3Bradley 2007, pers. comm. 

4FNAI 2011. 

5Gann 2015, p. 167. 

Biology 

Life History and Reproduction: Little 

is known about the life history of 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum. 

Reproduction is sexual, but little is 

known about the reproductive biology 

and ecology of the subspecies (Bradley 

and Gann 1999, p. 25; Gann 2015, p. 

167). Herndon (1998, pp. 13–14) found 

up to 88 percent of plants survived more 

than 3 years, showing that it is a 

somewhat long-lived taxon. The 

extensive root system of C. deltoidea 

ssp. pinetorum also suggests that it is a 

long-lived plant (Maschinski et al. 2003, 

p. 179). Some of the plants recorded as 

dead during surveys may have instead 

been in a cryptic phase (Herndon 1998, 

pp. 13–14); Gann 2015, p. 167). 

Pollinators are unknown; some other 

species of Chamaesyce are completely 

reliant on insects for pollination and 

seed production, while others are selfpollinating (Maschinski et al. 2003, p. 

179; Gann 2015, p. 168). Pollinators may 

include bees, flies, ants, and wasps 

(Ehrenfeld 1979, p. 95; Gann 2015, p. 

168). Dispersal is unknown for 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum; 

however, many seed capsules in similar 

Chamaesyce species are explosively 

dehiscent, a form of dispersal that flings 

seeds far from the parent plant 

(Maschinski et al. 2003, p. 179; Gann 

2015, p. 168). Chamaesyce deltoidea 

ssp. pinetorum is thought to have a 

similar, but reduced, level of dispersal 

(Lange 2016, pers. comm.). This species 

is known to flower and fruit year round 

(Wendelberger and Maschinski 2006, p. 

2). Peaks in fruiting for C. deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum occur in the fall and are 

stimulated by fire (Wendelberger and 

Maschinski 2006, p. 2). The plants can 

stand partial inundation with fresh 

water for a portion of the year, but do 

not tolerate salinity. 

Fire Ecology and Demography: There 

have been no studies of Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum demographics. 

However, the subspecies is not shade 

tolerant, and it requires periodic lowintensity fires to reduce competition by 

woody species to maintain habitat 

(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 26; ENP 

2014, p. 170). Therefore, historical 

declines have been partially attributed 

to habitat loss from fire suppression or 

inadequate fire management. 

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

(Florida prairie-clover) 

Species Description 

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana is 

a short-lived (less than 8 years) 

perennial shrub that is 2.6 to 9.8 ft (0.8 

to 3.0 m) tall with a light brown woody 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46698 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

stem and non-woody, light brown or 

reddish branches. The leaves are 

composed of 9 to 15 oval, gland-tipped 

leaflets, and are gland-dotted on the 

underside. The flowers are in small 

loose heads at ends of hairy, glandular 

stalks, less than 0.4 in long. The flower 

color is white and maroon; each of the 

petals is different lengths and shapes. 

The fruit is a small one-seeded pod, 

mostly enclosed by the hairy, glanddotted calyx (bracts at base of each 

flower) (adapted from Long and Lakela 

1971, p. 478; Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 

42; Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 44). 

Taxonomy 

Chapman (1886, p.102) was the first 

to report this taxon in Florida, calling it 

the tropical Dalea domingensis, based 

on specimens collected on Key 

Biscayne. Small (1913, p. 89) accepted 

this epithet but included the taxon in 

the genus Parosela, making the plant P. 

domingensis. Rydberg (1920, p. 114) 

renamed the plant, calling it Parosela 

floridana, which was retained by Small 

(1933, pp. 694–695). Clausen (1946a, p. 

85) reviewed the taxonomy of Florida 

and West Indian Dalea and considered 

them all to be the same species. Clausen 

(1946a, p. 85) also found that the name 

D. domingensis was a homonym of D. 

emphysodes, and published the name D. 

emphysodes ssp. domingensis. Clausen 

(1946b, p. 572) later discovered that his 

use of the name D. emphysodes was in 

error, and renamed the plants D. 

carthagenensis ssp. domingensis. Long 

and Lakela (1971, p. 478) accepted this 

usage. Barneby (1977), in a monograph 

of the genus, also found that Florida 

plants were distinct from West Indian 

plants, citing differences in leaf 

characters, naming the Florida species 

D. carthagenensis var. floridana. 

Wunderlin (1998) has followed this 

treatment. 

The Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (2016, p. 1) 

indicates that the taxonomic standing 

for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

(Rydb.) Barneby is accepted. The online 

Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants 

(Wunderlin and Hansen 2016, p. 1) uses 

the name D. carthagenensis var. 

floridana, as does NatureServe (2016, p. 

1). FDACS uses the name Dalea 

carthagenensis and notes that D. 

carthagenensis var. floridana is endemic 

(Coile and Garland 2003, p. 17). In 

summary, there is consensus that D. 

carthagenensis var. floridana is a 

distinct taxon. We have carefully 

reviewed the available taxonomic 

information to reach the conclusion that 

D. carthagenensis var. floridana is a 

valid taxon. 

Climate 

The climate of south Florida where 

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

occurs is classified as tropical savanna 

as described above for Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense. 

Habitat 

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

grows in pine rockland, rockland 

hammock, marl prairie, and coastal 

berm, and in the ecotones between these 

habitats (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 43). 

It occurs in sparsely vegetated, well-lit, 

open areas that are maintained by 

disturbance. However, the dynamic 

nature of the habitat means that areas 

not currently open may become open in 

the future as a result of canopy 

disruption from hurricanes or invasive 

plant management, while areas 

currently open may develop more dense 

canopy over time, eventually rendering 

that portion of the hammock unsuitable 

for D. carthagenensis var. floridana. 

Detailed descriptions of pine rockland, 

marl prairie, rockland hammock, and 

coastal berm habitats are discussed in 

the proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282; 

October 11, 2016). The species may also 

occur along roadsides within these 

habitats (Gann et al. 2006, p. 10). A 

detailed description of roadside habitat 

is presented in the proposed listing rule 

(81 FR 70282; October 11, 2016). 

Historical Range 

The historical range of Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana includes 

Miami-Dade, Monroe, Collier, and Palm 

Beach Counties (Gann et al. 2015, pp. 

25–26). There have been no reports of 

this plant from Palm Beach County 

since 1918 (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 

42). In Miami-Dade County, the plant 

has been extirpated from a number of 

historical locations, including Castellow 

Hammock, ENP, the Coral Gables area, 

pinelands south of the Miami River, and 

Cox Hammock (Bradley and Gann 1999, 

pp. 42–43; Bradley 2007, pers. comm.; 

Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 39). Gann et 

al. (2002, pp. 408–411) accounted for 

essentially every herbarium specimen 

and reliable sighting. D. carthagenensis 

var. floridana is presumed to be 

extirpated within ENP (Gann 2015, pp. 

25–26). All known historical and 

current records for D. carthagenensis 

var. floridana are summarized below in 

Table 4. 

Current Range, Population Estimates, 

and Status 

The current range of Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana includes 

BCNP (Monroe and Collier Counties), 

three Miami-Dade County conservation 

areas, and three additional unprotected 

lands within the Cutler Bay region of 

Miami-Dade County (Maschinski et al. 

2014, p. 39) 

In 1999, Dalea carthagenensis var. 

floridana was rediscovered within 

BCNP (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 42). 

Maschinski et al. (2014, p. 31) 

subsequently surveyed the four extant 

populations on BCNP, finding two of 

them. An area north of Oasis Visitor 

Center contained 236 plants (of various 

ages) and represents the largest extant 

population within BCNP. The second 

extant population was in the Pinecrest 

region (along Loop Road) of BCNP, an 

historical location within the Park; 

however, only 17 plants were 

encountered. D. carthagenensis var. 

floridana was not found at 11-Mile 

Road, nor at a second location along 

Loop Road, during the surveys. 

Extensive surveys of extant Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana 

populations at Charles Deering Estate, 

RHMP, and Crandon Park within 

Miami-Dade County have been 

conducted over the past decade 

(Maschinski et al. 2014, pp. 31–34). 

During 2003 to 2007, the population at 

Charles Deering Estate ranged from 

between 50 and 80 individuals, with the 

number of seedlings ranging from 3 to 

54. However, beginning in 2008, studies 

documented pulses in seedling 

establishment (Maschinski et al. 2014, 

p. 33). In 2010, the total population size 

(seedlings and woody plants) was 356 

individuals. The majority of these were 

seedlings and basal re-sprouts from a 

fire that affected approximately onethird of the population (Maschinski et 

al. 2010, p. 24). A 2014 survey found 

347 plants (Maschinski et al. 2015, p. 

30). However, the population declined 

to 164 and 170 in 2016 and 2017, 

respectively (Lange et al. 2016, p. 10; 

Possley 2017, pers. comm.). 

The population at RHMP declined 

from 31 plants in 2004 to just 1 woody 

plant and 3 seedlings in 2008. In 2009, 

Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden 

(FTBG) initiated reintroduction of Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana at RHMP, 

documenting 52 established plants from 

the 6,000 seeds sown (Maschinski et al. 

2015, p. 30). Subsequently, those plants 

have reproduced, resulting in several 

generations of Dalea carthagenensis var. 

floridana within the reintroduction area. 

A density of 350 individuals was 

recorded in early 2017 (Possley 2017, 

pers. comm.) at this location. 

In 2003, Dalea carthagenensis var. 

floridana was rediscovered within 

coastal uplands at Crandon Park for the 

first time since 1966 (Maschinski et al. 

2010, p. 28). The population at Crandon 

Park appears to be stable; however, it is 

highly localized to a small area of 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46699 

approximately 145 square miles 

(Possley and Maschinski 2009, p. 10). 

During 2007, FTBG initiated a 

demographic study of D. carthagenensis 

var. floridana. Sampling plots found 200 

plants of various sizes resulting in a 

population estimate of 966 plants at the 

site (Maschinski 2007, pers. comm.; 

Possley and Maschinski 2009, p. 10). 

Subsequent surveys have shown the 

population to vary considerably, 

possibly due to a short lifespan or plant 

dormancy (Possley and Maschinski 

2009, p. 10). Surveys at Crandon Park 

identified 288, 168, and 416 

individuals, in 2014, 2015, and 2016 

respectively (Maschinski et al. 2015, p. 

32; Lange et al. 2016, p. 12). Additional 

known populations within Miami-Dade 

County are summarized below in 

Table 4. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF THE KNOWN OCCURRENCES OF DALEA CARTHAGENENSIS VAR. FLORIDANA

Population Ownership Most recent 

population estimate Status 

Everglades National Park ........................ National Park Service ............................ ................................................................ Extirpated 

(1964). 

Big Cypress National Preserve, North of 

Oasis Visitor Center.

National Park Service ............................ 236 (2014) 1 ............................................ Extant. 

Big Cypress National Preserve, 11-Mile 

Road.

National Park Service ............................ 0 (2014) 1 ................................................ Extirpated 

(2014). 

Big Cypress National Preserve, 

Pinecrest.

National Park Service ............................ 17 (2014) 1 .............................................. Extant. 

Charles Deering Estate ........................... Miami-Dade County ............................... 170 (2017) 5 ............................................ Extant. 

Virginia Key ............................................. City of Miami .......................................... 4 (2010) 2 ................................................ Extant. 

R. Hardy Matheson Preserve .................. Miami-Dade County ............................... 350 (2017) 2 ............................................ Extant. 

Crandon Park .......................................... Miami-Dade County ............................... 416 (2016) 3 ............................................ Extant. 

Strawberry Fields Hammock (next to 

Natural Forest Community).

Private .................................................... 17 (2014) 4 .............................................. Extant. 

Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.Private .................................................... 21 (2014) 4 .............................................. Extant. 

Florida Power and Light property ............ Private .................................................... 2–10 (2007) 4 .......................................... Extant. 

Coral Gables area ................................... Private .................................................... ................................................................ Extirpated 

(1967).6

Cox Hammock ......................................... Private .................................................... ................................................................ Extirpated 

(1930).6

Castellow Hammock Preserve ................ Miami-Dade County ............................... ................................................................ Extirpated 

(1975).6

Pineland South of Miami River ............... Unknown ................................................ Unknown ................................................ Unknown.6

Palm Beach County ................................ Private .................................................... ................................................................ Extirpated 

(1918).6

1 Maschinski et al. (2014, p. 31). 2 Maschinski et al. (2015, pp. 30–33). 3 Lange et al. (2016, p. 12). 4 Maschinski et al. (2014, p. 39). 5Possley 2017, pers. comm. 

6Bradley 2007, pers. comm. 

Biology 

Life History and Reproduction: Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana appears to 

be a short-lived (less than 8 years) 

perennial with a persistent seed bank 

(Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 45; Lange et 

al. 2016, p.15). D. carthagenensis var. 

floridana produces flowers from 

October to March and fruit ripen from 

November to April. The seed maturation 

period is January to May, with a peak 

in February and March. Larger plants 

can produce over 500 seeds. Seedling 

recruitment varies widely from year to 

year, with lower recruitment in drier 

years. Seedlings and juveniles 

experience rapid growth in their first 2 

years (Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 45). 

The plants can withstand partial 

inundation with fresh water for a 

portion of the year, but do not tolerate 

salinity. 

Ongoing survey data were used from 

the Crandon Park population to conduct 

a preliminary population viability 

analysis (PVA) (Maschinski et al. 2014). 

The population at Crandon Park 

declined by 33 percent from 2007 to 

2009. High seedling recruitment 

increased numbers in 2010, which 

stabilized the population until 2014, 

when a pulse of high recruitment 

occurred. The study indicated that 3 

years had declining population growth 

and 4 years were stable or increasing, a 

cyclic pattern characteristic of shortlived species. The PVA indicated that 

the external cues (temperature and soil 

moisture) required to break dormancy 

positively influenced Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana 

population dynamics. However, if 

coupled with seedling mortality, serious 

population decline resulted. Low winter 

temperature coupled with average 

rainfall resulted in high seedling 

recruitment and good seedling survival; 

however, if high rainfall followed cold 

winter temperatures, as was noted for 

winter 2010, seedling mortality was 

high (Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 41). 

Fire Ecology and Demography: 

Periodic fire is extremely important to 

maintaining habitat for Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana 

(Maschinski et al. 2015, p. 39). The most 

recent surveys of RHMP indicated a 

stable D. carthagenensis var. floridana 

population, including 295 seedlings that 

germinated following a prescribed burn 

(Maschinski et al, 2015, p. 30). 

Therefore, historical declines have been 

partially attributed to habitat loss from 

fire suppression or inadequate fire 

management. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

The Act directs us to determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any one of five factors affecting its 

continued existence. In this section, we 

summarize the biological condition of 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46700 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

each of the plant species and its 

resources, and the factors affecting 

them, to assess the species’ overall 

viability and the risks to that viability. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

have experienced substantial 

destruction, modification, and 

curtailment of their habitat and ranges. 

Specific threats to these plants included 

in this factor include habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and modification caused 

by development (i.e., conversion to both 

urban and agricultural land uses) and 

inadequate fire management. Each of 

these threats and its specific effects on 

these plants are discussed in detail 

below. 

Human Population Growth, 

Development, and Agricultural 

Conversion 

The modification and destruction of 

the habitats that support Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana has been 

extreme in most areas of Miami-Dade 

and Monroe Counties, thereby reducing 

the plants’ current range and abundance 

in Florida. The pine rockland 

community of south Florida, in which 

these species primarily occur, is 

critically imperiled locally and globally 

(FNAI 2010, p. 27). Destruction of pine 

rocklands and rockland hammocks has 

occurred since the beginning of the 

1900s. Extensive land clearing for 

human population growth, 

development, and agriculture in MiamiDade and Monroe Counties has altered, 

degraded, or destroyed thousands of 

acres of these once abundant 

ecosystems. 

In Miami-Dade County, development 

and agriculture have reduced pine 

rockland habitat by 90 percent in 

mainland south Florida. Pine rockland 

habitat in Miami-Dade County, 

including ENP, was reduced to about 11 

percent of its natural extent, from 

approximately 74,000 hectares (ha) 

(183,000 acres (ac)) in the early 1900s, 

to only 8,140 ha (20,100 ac) in 1996 

(Kernan and Bradley 1996, p. 2). The 

largest remaining intact pine rockland 

(approximately 2,313 ha (5,716 ac)) is 

Long Pine Key in ENP. Outside of ENP, 

only about 1 percent of the pine 

rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge 

have escaped clearing, and much of 

what is left are small remnants scattered 

throughout the Miami metropolitan 

area, isolated from other natural areas 

(Herndon 1998, p. 1). Habitat loss 

continues to occur in these plants’ 

range, and most remaining suitable 

habitat has been negatively altered 

through human activity (illegal clearing, 

dumping), preclusion of fire, and 

introduction of nonnative species. 

Significant remaining pine rockland 

habitat occurs on private lands and 

publically owned lands that are not 

dedicated to or managed for 

conservation. The species occurring on 

this remaining suitable habitat face 

threats from habitat loss and 

degradation, and threats are expected to 

accelerate with increased development. 

The human population within MiamiDade County is currently greater than 

2.4 million people, and the population 

is expected to grow to more than 4 

million by 2060, an annual increase of 

roughly 30,000 people (Zwick and Carr 

2006, p. 20). 

Some of the known populations of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

occur on public conservation lands. 

Miami-Dade County has developed a 

network of publicly owned conservation 

lands within Miami-Dade County, but 

prescribed fire is lacking at many of 

these sites. ENP and BCNP actively 

manage their respective pine rockland 

habitat with prescribed fire. However, 

any extant populations of these plants 

or suitable habitat that may occur on 

non-conservation public or private land, 

such as within the Richmond Pine 

Rocklands, are vulnerable to habitat loss 

directly from development or indirectly 

by lack of management. 

The marl prairie habitat that also 

supports Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

has similarly been destroyed by the 

rapid development of Miami-Dade and 

Monroe Counties. At least some of the 

occurrences reported from this habitat 

may be the result of colonization that 

occurred after the habitat was artificially 

dried-out due to local or regional 

drainage. Marl prairie on nonconservation public or private land 

remains vulnerable to development, 

which could lead to the loss of 

populations of these species. 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense occurs in numerous 

pine rocklands outside of ENP within 

Miami-Dade County, most of which are 

impacted by some degree by 

development. Two privately owned 

sites in Miami-Dade County supporting 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense are vulnerable to 

habitat loss from development. Eight 

sites that support the species are public 

land, which provides for some 

management and protection. However, 

one population on public land, the 

county-owned Nixon-Smiley Preserve, 

is extirpated. 

Two extant populations of Digitaria 

pauciflora are located at ENP and BCNP, 

public lands managed for conservation. 

The third extant population is located at 

Camp Everglades, a property within 

ENP owned by the Boy Scouts of 

America; this property is managed, in 

coordination with ENP, for 

conservation. Outside the protected 

lands of ENP and BCNP, Digitaria 

pauciflora occurred throughout MiamiDade County, including as recently as 

1995 within remnant marl prairie 

habitats of the Martinez Pineland. 

Martinez Pineland is adjacent to several 

other remnant pine rocklands that form 

the largest contiguous area of pine 

rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County. 

However, D. pauciflora has since 

disappeared (Herndon 1998, p. 88; 

Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 49) from 

Martinez Pineland, and plans are being 

reviewed for development of private 

portions (see discussion of Richmond 

Pine Rocklands, below). Three other 

historical occurrences in Miami-Dade 

County had been documented; however, 

D. pauciflora is extirpated from these 

sites; the four historical sites comprise 

half of the species’ historical range 

(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 25; Gann 

2015, p. 167). Surveys did not document 

other extant D. pauciflora populations 

along FDOT rights-of-way within 

Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties 

(Gordon et al. 2007, pp. 1, 38). 

Eight populations of Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum located on 

private land are vulnerable to habitat 

loss due to development. Ten extant 

populations occur on public land and 

are largely protected from development. 

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

has been extirpated from a number of 

historical locations within Miami-Dade 

County, including ENP for unknown 

reasons, and by development at 

Castellow Hammock, in the Coral 

Gables area, the pinelands south of the 

Miami River, and Cox Hammock 

(Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 42–43; 

Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 39). In 

addition, there have been no reports of 

D. carthagenensis var. floridana from 

Palm Beach County since 1918, and this 

area is now densely developed (Bradley 

and Gann 1999, p. 42). Six populations 

occur on public lands and are protected 

from development. Three extant 

populations occur on private land and 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46701 

are vulnerable to habitat loss from 

development. However, because this is 

a highly localized plant, which is 

difficult to survey for, it is possible that 

additional extant populations exist 

(Lange 2016, pers. comm.). 

Currently, there are plans to develop 

55 ha (137 ac) of the largest remaining 

parcel of pine rockland habitat in 

Miami-Dade County, the Richmond Pine 

Rocklands, with a shopping center and 

residential construction (Ram 2014, p. 

2). This parcel has been called the ‘‘the 

largest and most important area of pine 

rockland in Miami-Dade County outside 

of Everglades National Park’’ (Bradley 

and Gann 1999, p. 4). Although 

Digitaria pauciflora is extirpated from 

Richmond Pine Rocklands, populations 

of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, along with numerous 

other federally listed species, still occur 

there. The Miami-Dade County 

Department of Environmental Resources 

Management (DERM) has completed a 

management plan for portions of the 

Richmond Pine Rocklands under a grant 

from the Service and is leading the 

restoration and management of the 

Richmond Pine Rocklands (Bradley and 

Gann 1999, p. 4). The developer has 

proposed to enter into a habitat 

conservation plan (Ram 2014, p. 2) in 

conjunction with their plans to develop 

their portion of the site and was 

required by Miami-Dade County Natural 

Forest Community (NFC) regulations to 

set aside and manage 17 ha (43 ac) of 

pine rockland and associated habitats. A 

second project that would result in the 

loss of pine rockland habitat has been 

proposed for the Richmond Pine 

Rocklands. It includes expanding the 

Miami Zoo complex to develop an 

amusement park and commercial 

entities. These development projects 

will result in the loss of pine rockland 

habitat that maintains a population of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense as well as several 

federally listed species, and may 

preclude future recovery options for the 

four plants (such as compromising the 

land managers’ ability to burn within 

Richmond Pine Rocklands). 

Habitat Fragmentation 

The remaining pine rocklands in the 

Miami metropolitan area are severely 

fragmented and isolated from each 

other. Habitat fragmentation reduces the 

size of plant populations and increases 

spatial isolation of remnants. The effects 

of fragmentation on Angadenia berteroi 

(pineland golden trumpet) show that 

abundance and fragment size were 

positively related (Barrios et al. 2011, p. 

1062). Plant species richness and 

fragment size are positively correlated 

(although some small fragments 

supported nearly as many species as the 

largest fragment) in south Florida pine 

rocklands (Possley et al. 2008, p. 385). 

Composition of fragmented habitat 

typically differs from that of intact 

forests, as isolation and edge effects 

increase leading to increased abundance 

of disturbance-adapted species (weedy 

species, nonnative invasive species) and 

lower rates of pollination and propagule 

dispersal (Laurence and Bierregaard 

1997, pp. 347–350.; Noss and Csuti 

1997, pp. 284–299). The degree to 

which fragmentation negatively impacts 

the dispersal abilities of Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana is 

unknown. In the historical landscape, 

where pine rockland occurred within a 

mosaic of wetlands, water may have 

acted as a dispersal vector for all pine 

rockland seeds. In the current 

fragmented landscape, this type of 

dispersal would no longer be possible 

for any of the Miami-Dade populations, 

because they exist in isolated habitat 

patches surrounded by miles of 

unsuitable habitat (agriculture and 

urban development) on every side. 

While additional dispersal vectors may 

include animals and (in certain 

locations) mowing equipment, it is 

likely that fragmentation has effectively 

reduced these plants’ ability to disperse. 

While pollination research has not 

been conducted for Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana, research 

regarding other species and ecosystems 

provides valuable information regarding 

potential effects of fragmentation to 

these plants. Effects of fragmentation 

may include changes to the pollinator 

community as a result of limitation of 

pollinator-required resources (e.g., 

reduced availability of rendezvous 

plants, nesting and roosting sites, and 

nectar/pollen); these changes may 

include changes to pollinator 

community composition, species 

abundance and diversity, and pollinator 

behavior (Rathcke and Jules 1993, pp. 

273–275; Kremen and Ricketts 2000, p. 

1227; Harris and Johnson 2004, pp. 30– 

33). As a result, plants in fragmented 

habitats may experience lower visitation 

rates, which in turn may result in 

reduced seed production of the 

pollinated plant (which may lead to 

reduced seedling recruitment), reduced 

pollen dispersal, increased inbreeding, 

reduced genetic variability, and 

ultimately reduced population viability 

(Rathcke and Jules 1993, p. 275; 

Goverde et al. 2002, pp. 297–298; Harris 

and Johnson 2004, pp. 33–34). 

The effects of fragmentation on fire go 

beyond edge effects and include 

reduced likelihood and extent of fires, 

and altered behavior and characteristics 

(e.g., intensity) of those fires that do 

occur. Habitat fragmentation encourages 

the suppression of naturally occurring 

fires, and has prevented fire from 

moving across the landscape in a 

natural way, resulting in an increased 

amount of habitat suffering from these 

negative impacts. High fragmentation of 

small habitat patches within an urban 

matrix discourages the use of prescribed 

fire as well due to logistical difficulties 

(see ‘‘Fire Management,’’ below). 

Forest fragments in urban settings are 

also subject to increased likelihood of 

certain types of human-related 

disturbance, such as the dumping of 

trash (Chavez and Tynon 2000, p. 405) 

and illegal clearing. The many effects of 

habitat fragmentation may work in 

concert to negatively impact the local 

persistence of a species, especially in 

small populations (see discussion 

below); when a species’ range of 

occurrence is limited, as with these four 

plants, threats to local persistence 

increase extinction risk. 

Fire Management 

One of the primary threats to 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

is habitat modification and degradation 

through inadequate fire management, 

which includes both the lack of 

prescribed fire and suppression of 

natural fires. Where the term ‘‘firesuppressed’’ is used below, it describes 

degraded pine rockland conditions 

resulting from a lack of adequate fire 

(natural or prescribed) in the landscape. 

Historically, frequent (approximately 

twice per decade), lightning-induced 

fires were a vital component in 

maintaining native vegetation and 

ecosystem functioning within south 

Florida pine rocklands (see the 

‘‘Habitat’’ discussion under the heading 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, above). A period of 

just 10 years without fire may result in 

a marked decrease in the number of 

herbaceous species due to the effects of 

shading and litter accumulation (FNAI 

2010, p. 63). Exclusion of fire for 

approximately 25 years will likely result 

in gradual hammock development over 

that time period, leaving a system that 

is very fire resistant if additional pre-fire 

management (e.g., mechanical 

hardwood removal) is not undertaken. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46702 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Today, natural fires are unlikely to 

occur or are likely to be suppressed in 

the remaining, highly fragmented pine 

rockland habitat. The suppression of 

natural fires has reduced the size of the 

areas that burn, and habitat 

fragmentation has prevented fire from 

moving across the landscape in a 

natural way. Without fire, successional 

climax from pine rockland to rockland 

hammock takes 10 to 25 years, and 

displacement of native species by 

invasive, nonnative plants often occurs. 

All occurrences of Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana are 

affected by some degree from 

inadequate fire management, with the 

primary threat being shading by 

hardwoods (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 

15; Bradley and Gann 2005, entire). 

Shading may also be caused by a firesuppressed (and, in some cases, 

planted) pine canopy that has evaded 

the natural thinning effects that fire has 

on seedlings and smaller trees, for 

example, as is seen on the pine rockland 

habitat on the Miami Rock Ridge (Gann 

2013, pers. comm.). Understory plants 

such as Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

are shaded out after just 10 years 

without fire, by hardwoods and 

nonnatives alike. 

Whether the dense canopy is 

composed of pine, hardwoods, 

nonnatives, or a combination, seed 

germination and establishment are 

inhibited in fire-suppressed habitat due 

to accumulated leaf litter, which also 

changes soil moisture and nutrient 

availability (Hiers et al. 2007, pp. 811– 

812). This alteration to microhabitat can 

also inhibit seedling establishment as 

well as negatively influence flower and 

fruit production (Wendelberger and 

Maschinski 2009, pp. 849–851), thereby 

reducing sexual reproduction in fireadapted species such as Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana (Geiger 

2002, pp. 78–79, 81–83). 

After an extended period of 

inadequate fire management in pine 

rocklands, it becomes necessary to 

control invading native hardwoods 

mechanically, as excess growth of native 

hardwoods would result in a hot fire, 

which can cause mortality of pines and 

destroy the rootstocks and seed banks of 

other native plants. Mechanical 

treatments cannot entirely replace fire 

because pine trees, understory shrubs, 

grasses, and herbs all contribute to an 

ever-increasing layer of leaf litter, 

covering herbs and preventing 

germination, as discussed above. Leaf 

litter will continue to accumulate even 

if hardwoods are removed 

mechanically. In addition, the ashes left 

by fires provide important post-fire 

nutrient cycling, which is not provided 

via mechanical removal. 

Studies on the impacts of fire on 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

are ongoing. Fire is critical in 

maintaining the open understory and 

species diversity in pine rocklands and 

marl prairies where these species occur, 

as well as to reduce populations of 

nonnative plant species. Fire maintains 

the ecotone (transition) between saw 

grass marsh, pine rockland, and 

rockland hammock habitats where S. 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense grows. 

It is anticipated that some natural 

mortality of Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

may occur from fire, especially more 

intense fires. S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense and C. deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum grow in wet marl soils and 

soil deposits within cracks in the 

limestone bedrock, which provides 

protection to the roots and allow plants 

to resprout following fire. C. deltoidea 

ssp. pinetorum, in particular, possesses 

a well-developed rootstock that is 

protected from fire (ENP 2014, p. 203). 

Herndon (1998, p. 28) pointed out that 

the life history of C. deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum includes a cryptic stage, 

making interpretation of mortality of 

aboveground parts difficult. 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

demonstrate differences in mortality or 

long-term population impacts as a result 

of wet or dry season burns. Indirect 

evidence suggests that burning in either 

season is suitable to maintain 

populations of S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

and C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum in pine 

rocklands. Prescribed fire in ENP was 

originally conducted during the dry 

season. Fire management was gradually 

shifted to wet season burning in an 

effort to better mimic natural lightning 

ignited fire patterns. As a result, 

pinelands and marl prairies in ENP 

where S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, and C. 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum occur have 

been burned in both the wet season and 

dry season. Long-term maintenance of 

populations in those areas indicates that 

either practice will sustain populations 

of these species. 

Federal (Service, National Park 

Service [NPS]), State (Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP), Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC)), and 

County (Miami-Dade, DERM) land 

managers, and nonprofits (Institute for 

Regional Conservation (IRC)) implement 

prescribed fire on public and private 

lands within the ranges of Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana. Even in 

areas under active management, some 

portions are typically fire-suppressed. 

Nevertheless, all of these sites retain a 

contingent of native species and a 

seedbank capable of responding to fire. 

While ENP, BCNP, and various 

Miami-Dade County conservation lands 

(e.g., Navy Wells Pineland Preserve) 

each attempt to administer prescribed 

burns, the threat of inadequate fire 

management still remains. The pine 

rocklands in the Long Pine Key region 

of ENP remained largely fire-suppressed 

for the past decade as ENP updated its 

fire management plan. Although 

prescribed fire was returned to Long 

Pine Key in early 2016, many areas 

retained substantial amounts of 

unburned understory vegetation. As a 

result, despite reintroduction of a fire 

regime, several large-scale wildfires 

ignited during the spring months of 

2016, which burned up to 50 percent of 

the pine rocklands in Long Pine Key. 

Ultimately, this combination of 

prescribed burns and natural fires (if not 

too hot or lasting too long) is likely to 

improve conditions for Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, and Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum populations 

within ENP. For example, at 3 to 6 

months post-burn, these species appear 

to be recolonizing burned areas (Sadle 

2016, pers. comm.; Salvato 2016, pers. 

obs.). However, this chain of events also 

demonstrates the threat prolonged or 

insufficient fire management may pose 

to local populations of an imperiled 

species, even on public conservation 

lands. 

While management of some County 

conservation lands includes regular 

burning, other lands remain severely 

fire-suppressed. Implementation of a 

prescribed fire program in Miami-Dade 

County has been hampered by a 

shortage of resources, and by logistical 

difficulties and public concern related 

to burning next to residential areas. 

Many homes have been built in a 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46703 

mosaic of pine rockland, so the use of 

prescribed fire in many places has 

become complicated because of 

potential danger to structures and 

smoke generated from the burns. 

Nonprofit organizations such as IRC 

have similar difficulties in conducting 

prescribed burns due to difficulties with 

permitting and obtaining the necessary 

permissions as well as hazard insurance 

limitations (Gann 2013, pers. comm.). 

Few private landowners have the means 

and/or desire to implement prescribed 

fire on their property, and doing so in 

a fragmented urban environment is 

logistically difficult and may be costly. 

One of the few privately owned pine 

rocklands that is successfully managed 

with prescribed burning is Pine Ridge 

Sanctuary, located in a more 

agricultural (less urban) matrix of 

Miami-Dade, which was last burned in 

November 2010 (Glancy 2013, pers. 

comm.) and retains populations of both 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense and Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum. Similarly, 

extant populations of Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana within the 

privately owned Charles Deering Estate 

and County-owned Crandon Park are 

managed with fire. 

Conservation Efforts To Reduce the 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

Miami-Dade County Environmentally 

Endangered Lands (EEL) Covenant 

Program: In 1979, Miami-Dade County 

enacted the Environmentally 

Endangered Lands (EEL) Covenant 

Program, which reduces taxes for 

private landowners of natural forest 

communities (NFCs), such as pine 

rocklands and tropical hardwood 

hammocks, who agree not to develop 

their property and manage it for a 

period of 10 years, with the option to 

renew for additional 10-year periods 

(Service 1999, p. 3–177). Although these 

temporary conservation easements 

provide valuable protection for their 

duration, they are not considered under 

Factor D, below, because they are 

voluntary agreements and not regulatory 

in nature. Miami-Dade County currently 

has approximately 59 pine rockland 

properties enrolled in this program, 

preserving 69.4 ha (172 ac) of pine 

rockland habitat (Johnson 2012, pers. 

comm.). The program also has 

approximately 21 rockland hammocks 

properties enrolled in this program, 

preserving 20.64 ha (51 ac) of rockland 

hammock habitat (Joyner 2013b, pers. 

comm.). The vast majority of these 

properties are small, and many are in 

need of habitat management such as 

prescribed fire and removal of 

nonnative, invasive plants. Thus, while 

EEL covenant lands have the potential 

to provide valuable habitat for these 

plants and reduce threats in the near 

term, the actual effect of these 

conservation lands is largely determined 

by whether individual land owners 

follow prescribed EEL management 

plans and NFC regulations (see ‘‘Local’’ 

under the Factor D discussion, below). 

Fee Title Properties: In 1990, MiamiDade County voters approved a 2-year 

property tax to fund the acquisition, 

protection, and maintenance of natural 

areas by the EEL Program. The EEL 

Program purchases and manages natural 

lands for preservation. Land uses 

deemed incompatible with the 

protection of the natural resources are 

prohibited by current regulations; 

however, the County Commission 

ultimately controls what may happen 

with any County property, and land use 

changes may occur over time (Gil 2013, 

pers. comm.). To date, the Miami-Dade 

County EEL Program has acquired a 

total of approximately 313 ha (775 ac) 

of pine rockland and 95 ha (236 ac) of 

rockland hammocks (Guerra 2015, pers. 

comm.; Gil 2013, pers. comm.). The EEL 

Program also manages approximately 

314 ha (777 ac) of pine rocklands and 

639 ha (1,578 ac) of rockland hammocks 

owned by the Miami-Dade County 

Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces 

Department, including some of the 

largest remaining areas of pine rockland 

habitat on the Miami Rock Ridge 

outside of ENP (e.g., Larry and Penny 

Thompson Park, Zoo Miami pinelands, 

and Navy Wells Pineland Preserve), and 

some of the largest remaining areas of 

rockland hammocks (e.g., Matheson 

Hammock Park, Castellow Hammock 

Park, and Deering Estate Park and 

Preserves). 

Conservation efforts in Miami’s EEL 

Preserves have been underway for many 

years. In Miami-Dade County, 

conservation lands are and have been 

monitored by FTBG and IRC, in 

coordination with the EEL Program, to 

assess habitat status and determine any 

changes that may pose a threat to or 

alter the abundance of these species. 

Impacts to habitat via nonnative species 

and natural stochastic events are 

monitored and actively managed in 

areas where the taxon is known to 

occur. These programs are long-term 

and ongoing in Miami-Dade County; 

however, programs are limited by the 

availability of annual funding. In 

particular, fire management remains 

inadequate at many sites. 

Since 2005, the Service has funded 

IRC to facilitate restoration and 

management of privately owned pine 

rockland habitats in Miami-Dade 

County. These programs included 

prescribed burns, nonnative plant 

control, light debris removal, hardwood 

management, reintroduction of pines 

where needed, and development of 

management plans. One of these 

programs, called the Pine Rockland 

Initiative, includes 10-year cooperative 

agreements between participating 

landowners and the Service/IRC to 

ensure restored areas will be managed 

appropriately during that time. 

Although most of these objectives have 

been achieved, IRC has not been able to 

conduct the desired prescribed burns, 

due to logistical difficulties as discussed 

above (see ‘‘Fire Management,’’ above). 

Connect To Protect Program: FTBG, 

with the support of various Federal, 

State, local, and nonprofit organizations, 

has established the ‘‘Connect To Protect 

Network.’’ The objective of this program 

is to encourage widespread 

participation of citizens to create 

corridors of healthy pine rocklands by 

planting stepping stone gardens and 

rights-of-way with native pine rockland 

species, and restoring isolated pine 

rockland fragments. By doing this, 

FTBG hopes to increase the probability 

that pollination and seed dispersal 

vectors can find and transport seeds and 

pollen across developed areas that 

separate pine rockland fragments to 

improve gene flow between fragmented 

plant populations and increase the 

likelihood that these plants will persist 

over the long term. Although these 

projects may serve as valuable 

components toward the conservation of 

pine rockland species and habitat, they 

are dependent on continual funding, as 

well as participation from private 

landowners, both of which may vary 

through time. 

National Park Service Lands: The NPS 

General Management Plans (GMP) for 

ENP (NPS 2015) and BCNP (BCNP 2008) 

serve to protect, restore, and maintain 

natural and cultural resources at the 

ecosystem level. Although these GMPs 

are not regulatory, and their 

implementation is not mandatory, the 

Plans include conservation measures for 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

or Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. 

The GMPs for ENP and BCNP are both 

currently being implemented, 

specifically; prescribed fire is now being 

actively administered on a cyclic basis 

at both sites. In ENP, restoration 

continues throughout the Hole-in-theDonut region of Long Pine Key, which 

is resulting in resurgence of Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, and Chamaesyce 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46704 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum within the 

Park. 

Summary of Factor A 

Habitat loss, fragmentation and 

degradation, and associated pressures 

from increased human population are 

major threats to the four plants; these 

threats are expected to increase as 

remaining pine rocklands and other 

habitats are lost to development, placing 

these plants at greater risk. Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana may be 

impacted when pine rocklands are 

converted to other uses or when lack of 

fire causes the conversion to hardwood 

hammocks or other unsuitable habitats. 

On public lands, including NPS lands 

and Miami-Dade County-owned lands, 

implementation of prescribed fire has 

not been sufficient because of legal 

constraints (permitting requirements) 

and inadequate funding. Any 

populations of these four plants found 

on private property could be destroyed 

due to development. Although efforts 

are being made to conserve natural areas 

and apply prescribed fire, most pine 

rocklands remain in poor fire condition, 

and the long-term effects of large-scale 

and wide-ranging habitat modification, 

destruction, and curtailment will last 

into the future, while ongoing habitat 

loss due to population growth, 

development, and agricultural 

conversion continues to pose a threat to 

these species outside of conservation 

lands. Therefore, based on the best 

information available, we have 

determined that the threats to 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

from habitat destruction, modification, 

or curtailment are occurring throughout 

the entire range of these species and are 

expected to continue into the future. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

The best available data do not 

indicate that overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is a threat to 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

or Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. 

Threats to these plants related to other 

aspects of recreation and similar human 

activities (i.e., not related to 

overutilization) are discussed under 

Factor E, below. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Scale insects (Coccoidea) and 

Cassytha filiformis (love vine, a 

parasitic plant) infestations have been 

noted as parasites for Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana 

(Maschinski et al. 2015, p. 39) and may 

also influence populations of other 

listed pine rockland plant species. 

However, the best available data do not 

indicate that disease or predation is a 

threat to Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

or Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Under this factor, we examine 

whether threats to these plants 

discussed under the other factors are 

continuing due to an inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service 

to take into account ‘‘those efforts, if 

any, being made by any State or foreign 

nation, or any political subdivision of a 

State or foreign nation, to protect such 

species . . . ’’ In relation to Factor D 

under the Act, we interpret this 

language to require the Service to 

consider relevant Federal, State, and 

tribal laws, regulations, and other such 

binding legal mechanisms that may 

ameliorate or exacerbate any of the 

threats we describe in threat analyses 

under the other four factors, or 

otherwise enhance conservation of the 

species. 

Having evaluated the impact of the 

threats as mitigated by any such 

conservation efforts, we analyze under 

Factor D the extent to which existing 

regulatory mechanisms ameliorate or 

exacerbate the specific threats to the 

species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they 

exist, may reduce or eliminate the 

impacts from one or more identified 

threats. In this section, we review 

existing Federal, State, and local 

regulatory mechanisms to determine 

whether they effectively reduce or 

remove threats to Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum or Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana. 

Federal 

Lands managed by the National Park 

Service are subject to the NPS Organic 

Act of 1916, which provides that the 

‘‘fundamental purpose’’ of those lands 

‘‘is to conserve the scenery and the 

natural and historic objects and the wild 

life therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations’’ (16 U.S.C. 1). Most units of 

the National Park System also have their 

own specific enabling legislation, but 

the 1970 General Authorities Act makes 

it clear that all units are united into a 

single National Park System. 

Furthermore, no activities shall be 

allowed ‘‘in derogation of the values 

and purposes for which these various 

areas have been established, except as 

may have been or shall be directly and 

specifically provided by Congress’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1a–1). 

Populations of Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana within 

ENP and BCNP are protected by NPS 

regulations at 36 CFR 2.1, which 

prohibit visitors from harming or 

removing plants, listed or otherwise, 

from ENP or BCNP. However, the 

regulations do not address actions taken 

by NPS that cause mortality of 

individuals, or habitat loss or 

modification to development or sea 

level rise. NPS regulations do not 

require the application of prescribed fire 

or voluntary recovery actions for listed 

species. 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

have no Federal regulatory protection in 

their known occupied and suitable 

habitat outside of ENP or BCNP. These 

species may occur (we do not have 

recent surveys) on Federal lands within 

the Richmond Pine Rocklands, 

including lands owned by the U.S. 

Coast Guard and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Association (NOAA; 

small portion of Martinez Pineland). 

There are no Federal protections for 

these four species on these properties. 

Outside of NPS lands, these plants 

occur primarily on State- or Countyowned and private land (see Tables 1 

through 4, above), and development of 

these areas will likely require no 

Federal permit or other authorization, 

e.g. these projects are generally not 

analyzed under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

State 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

are listed on the State of Florida’s 

Regulated Plant Index (Index) as 

endangered under chapter 5B–40, 

Florida Administrative Code. This 

listing provides habitat protection 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46705 

through the State’s Development of 

Regional Impact process, which 

discloses impacts from projects and 

provides limited regulatory protection 

for State-listed plants on private lands. 

Florida Statutes 581.185 sections 

(3)(a) and (3)(b) prohibit any person 

from willfully destroying or harvesting 

any species listed as endangered or 

threatened on the Index or growing such 

a plant on the private land of another, 

or on any public land, without first 

obtaining the written permission of the 

landowner and a permit from the 

Florida Department of Plant Industry. 

The statute further provides that any 

person willfully destroying or 

harvesting; transporting, carrying, or 

conveying on any public road or 

highway; or selling or offering for sale 

any plant listed in the Index as 

endangered must have a permit from the 

State at all times when engaged in any 

such activities. Further, Florida Statutes 

581.185 section (10) provides for 

consultation similar to section 7 of the 

Act for listed species, by requiring the 

Department of Transportation to notify 

the FDACS and the Endangered Plant 

Advisory Council of planned highway 

construction at the time bids are first 

advertised, to facilitate evaluation of the 

project for listed plant populations, and 

to provide ‘‘for the appropriate disposal 

of such plants’’ (i.e., transplanting). 

However, this statute provides no 

substantive protection of habitat at this 

time. Florida Statutes 581.185 section 

(8) waives State regulation for certain 

classes of activities for all species on the 

Index, including the clearing or removal 

of regulated plants for agricultural, 

forestry, mining, construction 

(residential, commercial, or 

infrastructure), and fire-control 

activities by a private landowner or his 

or her agent. 

Local 

In 1984, section 24–49 of the Code of 

Miami-Dade County established 

regulation of County-designated NFCs, 

which include both pine rocklands and 

tropical hardwood hammocks. These 

regulations were placed on specific 

properties throughout the county by an 

act of the Board of County 

Commissioners in an effort to protect 

environmentally sensitive forest lands. 

The Miami-Dade County Department of 

Regulatory and Economic Resources 

(RER) has regulatory authority over 

NFCs and is charged with enforcing 

regulations that provide partial 

protection on the Miami Rock Ridge. 

Miami-Dade Code typically allows up to 

20 percent of a pine rockland designated 

as NFC to be developed, and requires 

that the remaining 80 percent be placed 

under a perpetual covenant. In certain 

circumstances, where the landowner 

can demonstrate that limiting 

development to 20 percent does not 

allow for ‘‘reasonable use’’ of the 

property, additional development may 

be approved. NFC landowners are also 

required to obtain an NFC permit for 

any work, including removal of 

nonnatives within the boundaries of the 

NFC on their property. The NFC 

program is responsible for ensuring that 

NFC permits are issued in accordance 

with the limitations and requirements of 

the code and that appropriate NFC 

preserves are established and 

maintained in conjunction with the 

issuance of an NFC permit. The NFC 

program currently regulates 

approximately 600 pine rockland or 

pine rockland/hammock properties, 

comprising approximately 1,200 ha 

(3,000 ac) of habitat (Joyner 2013a, pers. 

comm.). 

Although the NFC program is 

designed to protect rare and important 

upland (non-wetlands) habitats in south 

Florida, it has limitations for protection 

of the four plants discussed in this rule. 

For example, in certain circumstances 

where landowners can demonstrate that 

limiting development to 20 percent does 

not allow for ‘‘reasonable use’’ of the 

property, additional development may 

be approved. Furthermore, Miami-Dade 

County Code provides for up to 100 

percent of the NFC to be developed on 

a parcel in limited circumstances for 

parcels less than 2.02 ha (5 ac) in size 

and only requires coordination with the 

landowner if they plan to develop 

property or perform work within the 

NFC designated area. As such, the 

majority of the existing private, forested 

NFC parcels is isolated fragments, 

without management obligations or 

preserve designation, as development 

has not been proposed at a level that 

would trigger the NFC regulatory 

requirements. Often, nonnative 

vegetation over time begins to dominate 

and degrade the undeveloped and 

unmanaged NFC landscape until it no 

longer meets the legal threshold of an 

NFC, which requires the land to be 

dominated by native vegetation. When 

development of such degraded NFCs is 

proposed, Miami-Dade County Code 

requires delisting of the degraded areas 

as part of the development process. 

Property previously designated as NFC 

is removed from the list even before 

development is initiated because of the 

abundance of nonnative species, making 

it no longer considered to be 

jurisdictional or subject to the NFC 

protection requirements of Miami-Dade 

County Code (Grossenbacher 2013, pers. 

comm.). 

Summary of Factor D 

Currently, Sideroxylon reclinatum 

ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 

pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis 

var. floridana are found on Federal, 

State and County lands. NPS regulations 

provide protection at ENP and BCNP. 

While these regulations do not mandate 

active conservation measures, these two 

sites continue to support the largest and 

best managed populations. State 

regulations provide protection against 

trade, but allow private landowners or 

their agents to clear or remove species 

on the Florida Regulated Plant Index. 

State Park regulations provide 

protection for plants within Florida 

State Parks. The NFC program in Miami 

is designed to protect rare and 

important upland (non-wetlands) 

habitats in south Florida; however, this 

regulatory strategy has several 

limitations (as described above) that 

reduce its ability to protect the four 

plants and their habitats. 

Although many populations of the 

four plants are afforded some level of 

protection because they are on public 

conservation lands, especially Federal 

lands, existing regulatory mechanisms 

vary in strength and scope, and do not 

provide substantive protection of habitat 

at this time. They have not led to a 

sufficient reduction of threats posed to 

these plants by a wide array of sources 

(see discussions under Factors A and E 

in this rule). 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Other natural or manmade factors 

affect Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

to varying degrees. Specific threats to 

these plants included in this factor 

consist of the spread of nonnative 

invasive plants, potentially 

incompatible management practices 

(such as mowing), direct impacts to 

plants from recreation and other human 

activities, small population size and 

isolation, climate change, and the 

related risks from environmental 

stochasticity (extreme weather) on small 

populations. Each of these threats and 

its specific effect on these species are 

discussed in detail below. 

Nonnative Plant Species 

Nonnative, invasive plants compete 

with native plants for space, light, 

water, and nutrients, and make habitat 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46706 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

conditions unsuitable for Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana, which 

prefer open conditions. The control of 

nonnative plants is one of the most 

important conservation actions for the 

four plants and a critical part of habitat 

maintenance (Bradley and Gann 1999, 

pp. 13, 71–72). However, nonnative 

species control efforts require that 

personnel be highly familiar with pine 

rocklands and associated habitats in 

order to avoid impacts (e.g., improper 

herbicide use, species misidentification) 

to native species. 

Nonnative plants have significantly 

affected pine rocklands and negatively 

impact all occurrences of Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana to some 

degree (Bradley 2006, pp. 25–26; 

Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 18–19; 

Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 25; Bradley 

and van der Heiden 2013, pp. 12–16). 

As a result of human activities, at least 

277 taxa of nonnative plants have 

invaded pine rocklands throughout 

south Florida (Service 1999, p. 3–175). 

Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian 

pepper), Neyraudia neyraudiana 

(Burma reed), and Lygodium 

microphyllum (Old World climbing 

fern) affect these species (Bradley and 

Gann 1999, pp. 13, 72). Brazilian 

pepper, a nonnative tree, is the most 

widespread and one of the most 

invasive species. It forms dense thickets 

of tangled, woody stems that completely 

shade out and displace native vegetation 

(Loflin 1991, p. 19; Langeland and 

Craddock Burks 1998, p. 54). 

Nonnative plants in pine rocklands 

can affect the characteristics of a fire 

when it occurs. Historically, pine 

rocklands had an open, low understory 

where natural fires remained patchy 

with low temperature intensity. 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

thrive under this fire regime. However, 

dense infestations of Neyraudia 

neyraudiana and Schinus 

terebinthifolius cause higher fire 

temperatures and longer burning 

periods. 

Nonnative species occur throughout 

the ranges of the four plants. In ENP and 

BCNP, invasives tend to be fewer due to 

the insularity of these sites and the 

NPS’s control programs. Nevertheless, 

most areas require annual treatments to 

remove incipient invasions. 

Management of nonnative, invasive 

plants in pine rocklands in Miami-Dade 

County is further complicated because 

the vast majority of pine rocklands are 

small, fragmented areas bordered by 

urban development. Areas near 

managed pine rockland that contain 

nonnative species can act as a seed 

source of nonnatives, allowing them to 

continue to invade the surrounding pine 

rockland (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 

13). 

Nonnative plant species are also a 

concern on private lands, where often 

these species are not controlled due to 

associated costs, lack of interest, or lack 

of knowledge of detrimental impacts to 

the ecosystem. Undiscovered 

populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum 

ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 

pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis 

var. floridana on private lands could 

certainly be at risk. Overall, active 

management is necessary to control for 

nonnative species and to protect unique 

and rare habitats where these plants 

occur (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 273). 

Mowing 

While no studies have investigated 

the effect of mowing on Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, or Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana, research 

has been conducted on the federally 

endangered Linum carteri var. carteri 

(Carter’s small-flowered flax), which 

also occurs in pine rocklands. The study 

found significantly higher densities of 

plants at the mown sites where 

competition with other plants is 

decreased (Maschinski et al. 2007, p. 

56). However, plants growing on mown 

sites were shorter, which may affect 

fruiting magnitude. While mowing did 

not usually kill adult plants, it could 

delay reproduction if it occurred prior 

to plants reaching reproductive status 

(Maschinski et al. 2007, pp. 56–57). If 

such mowing occurs repeatedly, 

reproduction of those plants would be 

entirely eliminated. Maschinski et al. 

(2008, p. 28) recommended adjusting 

the timing of mowing to occur at least 

3 weeks after flowering is observed to 

allow a higher probability of adults 

setting fruit prior to the mowing event. 

With flexibility and proper instructions 

to land managers and ground crews, 

mowing practices could be 

implemented in such a way as to scatter 

seeds and reduce competition with little 

effect on population reproductive 

output for the year (Maschinski et al. 

2008, p. 28). The exact impacts of 

mowing also depend on the timing of 

rainfall prior to and following mowing, 

and the numbers of plants in the 

population that have reached a 

reproductive state. 

Recreation and Other Human Activities 

Recreational use of off-road vehicles 

(ORVs) is a threat to Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana 

occurrences within BCNP (K. Bradley et 

al. 2013, p. 3). Operators frequently veer 

off established trails, and plants can be 

harmed or destroyed (Bradley and Gann 

1999, p. 43). BCNP updated its Off Road 

Vehicle Management Plan in 2012, in 

response to extreme resource damage 

caused by ORVs. BCNP manages ORV 

access using a permit system, 

regulations, and designated trails. 

However, there are over 1,000 miles of 

ORV trails in BCNP, and only one 

enforcement officer (Pernas 2016, pers. 

comm.), making enforcement of 

designated ORV trails a challenge. 

Current aerial imagery from the 

Lostman’s Pine area of BCNP, where 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

occur, shows a criss-cross pattern of 

multiple ORV trails through the area. 

The Service is working with BCNP to 

determine the extent to which ORVs are 

affecting all three species at this site, 

particularly in regards to Digitaria 

pauciflora, since it is one of only two 

sites where the species is known to 

exist. Damage from ORV use has also 

been documented for Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana within the 

Charles Deering Estate (J. Possley 2008 

and 2009, pers. comm.). 

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana at 

the RHMP is also impacted by illegal 

mountain biking (Bradley and Gann 

1999, pp. 43–45). In the past, this 

pineland fragment was heavily used by 

mountain bikers. In response, MiamiDade County has erected fencing to 

protect this site, which appears to have 

reduced this threat (Bradley and Gann 

1999, p. 43). 

Effects of Small Population Size and 

Isolation 

Endemic species whose populations 

exhibit a high degree of isolation are 

extremely susceptible to extinction from 

both random and nonrandom 

catastrophic natural or human-caused 

events. Species that are restricted to 

geographically limited areas are 

inherently more vulnerable to extinction 

than widespread species because of the 

increased risk of genetic bottlenecks, 

random demographic fluctuations, 

effects of climate change, and localized 

catastrophes such as hurricanes and 

disease outbreaks (Mangel and Tier 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46707 

1994, p. 607; Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757). 

These problems are further magnified 

when populations are few and restricted 

to a very small geographic area, and 

when the number of individuals is very 

small. Populations with these 

characteristics face an increased 

likelihood of stochastic extinction due 

to changes in demography, the 

environment, genetics, or other factors 

(Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 24–34). 

Small, isolated populations, such as 

those in fragmented habitat, often 

exhibit reduced levels of genetic 

variability, although the ultimate effect 

of these changes is dependent on a 

plant’s specific life history, reproductive 

system, and interaction with pollinators 

and dispersal vectors (which may 

themselves be affected by 

fragmentation) (Young et al. 1996, p. 

413). While research results clearly 

indicate that isolation/fragmentation has 

population genetic consequences for 

plants, consequences are varied and for 

some species there may be a 

‘‘fragmentation threshold’’ below which 

genetic variation is not lost (Young et al. 

1996, p. 416). No such studies have 

been conducted for Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana, so 

whether these plants exhibit such a 

threshold is not known. Reduced 

genetic variability generally diminishes 

a species’ capacity to adapt and respond 

to environmental changes, thereby 

decreasing the probability of long-term 

persistence (e.g., Barrett and Kohn 1991, 

p. 4; Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 361). 

Very small plant populations may 

experience reduced reproductive vigor 

due to ineffective pollination or 

inbreeding depression. Isolated 

individuals have difficulty achieving 

natural pollen exchange, which limits 

the production of viable seed. The 

problems associated with small 

population size and vulnerability to 

random demographic fluctuations or 

natural catastrophes are further 

magnified by synergistic (interaction of 

two or more components) effects with 

other threats, such as those discussed 

above (Factors A and C). Tables 1, 2, 3, 

and 4 above, list the population sizes 

and the geographic ranges for S. 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, D. 

pauciflora, C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and D. carthagenensis var. floridana. 

For example, Table 2 lists Digitaria 

pauciflora as having two extant 

populations (ENP and BCNP), one 

estimated at 100,000–200,000 plants 

(Maschinski and Lange 2015, p.18) and 

the other with greater than 10,000 plants 

(K. Bradley 2007, pers. comm.). The 

Service does not consider these as small 

populations; however, a large wildfire 

or severe flooding could be catastrophic. 

As shown in 2016, D. pauciflora was 

impacted by fire in ENP and flooding in 

ENP and BCNP, proving that the small 

geographic extent of the existing 

populations is not sufficient to 

eliminate the risk posed by large-scale 

disturbances. 

Effects of Climate Change 

Climatic changes, including sea level 

rise, are major threats to the flora of 

south Florida, including Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana. Our 

analyses under the Act include 

consideration of ongoing and projected 

changes in climate. With regard to our 

analysis for S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and D. 

carthagenensis var. floridana, 

downscaled projections suggest that sea 

level rise is the largest climate-driven 

challenge to low-lying coastal areas in 

the subtropical ecoregion of southern 

Florida (U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program (USCCSP) 2008, pp. 5–31, 5– 

32). 

Global sea level has increased by 0.20 

to 0.23 m (8 to 9 in) since 1880, with 

the rate of increase over the past 20 

years doubling (Service 2017, p. 5). An 

average 0.08 m (3 in) increase in overall 

global sea level rise has occurred 

between 1992 and 2015 (National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2015, p. 2). 

This is equivalent to the Florida 

coastline subsiding at a rate of 0.04 

inches a year (Service 2017, p. 6). The 

long-term trend in sea level rise at the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Association (NOAA) Key West Station, 

Florida shows a 0.0024 m (0.09 in) 

increase per year from 1913 to 2015 of 

the mean high water line. The NOAA 

Vaca Key Station (City of Marathon) 

shows a 0.0035 m (0.14 in) per year sea 

level rise between 1971 (start of data 

collection) to 2015 (NOAA 2017a). 

Mean high water line is defined as, 

‘‘The line on a chart or map which 

represents the intersection of the land 

with the water surface at the elevation 

of mean high water’’ (NOAA National 

Ocean Service [NOS]) 2017). 

While the sea level rise rate for 

Florida has been equivalent to that 

experienced globally, recent analysis is 

now indicating an accelerated rate for 

the eastern United States above that of 

the global rate (NOAA 2017b, p. 25; 

Carter et al. 2014, pp. 401–403; Park and 

Sweet 2015, entire). The global trend is 

currently on the higher-end trajectory of 

the scenarios, projecting a sea level rise 

of 2.5 to 3.0 m by 2100. NOAA (2017b, 

p. 21) is recommending the use of the 

higher end estimates for future 

projections. The accelerated sea level 

rise in south Florida is being attributed 

to shifts in the Florida Current due to: 

(a) Added ocean mass brought on by the 

melting Antarctic and Greenland ice 

packs, and (b) thermal expansion from 

the warming ocean (Park and Sweet 

2015, entire article; Rahmstorf et al. 

2015, entire article; NOAA 2017b, p. 14; 

Deconto and Pollard, 2016, p. 596). For 

this reason, Walsh et al. (2014, pp. 32– 

35) recommended adding approximately 

15 percent to the earlier IPCC (2013, 

entire) global mean sea level rise 

projections when using projections for 

southern Florida if the projections used 

do not yet model the accelerated rate 

(Southeast Florida Regional Climate 

Change Compact [Compact] 2015, p. 35; 

Park and Sweet, 2015, entire article). 

Other processes expected to be 

affected by projected warming include 

temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal 

timing, and distribution), and storms 

(frequency and intensity) (discussed 

more specifically under ‘‘Environmental 

Stochasticity,’’ below). The 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

(MIT) modeled several scenarios 

combining various levels of sea level 

rise, temperature change, and 

precipitation differences with human 

population growth, policy assumptions, 

and conservation funding changes (see 

‘‘Alternative Future Landscape 

Models,’’ below). All of the scenarios, 

from small climate change shifts to 

major changes, indicate significant 

effects on coastal Miami-Dade County. 

In the United States, the average 

temperatures have increased by 0.77 to 

1.1 °C (1.3 to 1.9 °F) since record 

keeping began in 1895 (Service 2017, p. 

2). The decade from 2000 to 2009 is 

documented as the warmest since 

record keeping began in 1895 (Service 

2017, p. 2). The average temperatures in 

south Florida have increased 0.83 °C 

(1.5 °F) or more since 1991 (Service 

2017, p. 2). Because of the current 

condition of human-induced emissions 

(that is, the pattern of continued release 

of greenhouse gas (GHG) added to those 

already occurring in the atmosphere), 

increases in surface air temperature 

continue to rise. Even if there was an 

immediate and aggressive reduction to 

all GHG emissions caused by humans, 

there would still be expected continued 

increases in surface air temperature 

(IPCC 2013; pp. 19–20). 

Precipitation patterns are also 

changing. The National Climate 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46708 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Assessment (NCA) reports that average 

precipitation has increased by 5 to 10 

percent since 1900 in south Florida. 

Shifts in seasonal rainfall events as well 

as increases in average precipitation are 

currently being documented (Service 

2017, pp. 405). The south Florida dry 

season (November through April) has 

become wetter, and the rainy season 

(May through October) has become 

drier. Current projections show this 

trend to continue. 

Heavy downpours are currently 

increasing and have especially 

increased over the last 30 to 50 years in 

Florida. There is currently a 27 percent 

increase in the frequency and intensity 

of heavy downpours since the 1970s 

(Service 2017, p. 4). Increased inland 

flooding is predicted during heavy rain 

events in low-lying areas. With 

worsening storms, storm surges along 

coastlines become stronger and push 

inland further. Inundation of soils from 

storm surges can cause saltwater 

intrusion. More powerful storm surges 

exacerbate effects of the increased sea 

level along shorelines. Increased 

incidences of inland flooding and of 

low-lying areas are being documented 

regionally and locally (Staletovich 2016; 

Sheridan 2015). 

Decades prior to inundation, pine 

rocklands are likely to undergo 

vegetation shifts related to climate 

change, triggered by changes to 

hydrology (wetter), salinity (higher), and 

increasing vulnerability to storm surge 

(pulse events causing massive erosion 

and salinization of soils) (Saha et al. 

2011, pp. 169–184). Hydrology has a 

strong influence on plant distribution in 

these and other coastal areas (IPCC 

2008, p. 57). Such communities 

typically grade from saltwater to 

brackish to freshwater species. From the 

1930s to 1950s, increased salinity of 

coastal waters contributed to the decline 

of cabbage palm forests in southwest 

Florida (Williams et al. 1999, pp. 2056– 

2059), expansion of mangroves into 

adjacent marshes in the Everglades 

(Ross et al. 2000, pp. 101, 111), and loss 

of pine rockland in the Keys (Ross et al. 

1994, pp. 144, 151–155). In one Florida 

Keys pine rockland with an average 

elevation of 0.89 m (2.9 ft), Ross et al. 

(1994, pp. 149–152) observed an 

approximately 65 percent reduction in 

an area occupied by South Florida slash 

pine over a 70-year period, with pine 

mortality and subsequent increased 

proportions of halophytic (salt-loving) 

plants occurring earlier at the lower 

elevations. During this same time span, 

local sea level had risen by 15 cm (6.0 

in), and Ross et al. (1994, p. 152) found 

evidence of groundwater and soil water 

salinization. Extrapolating this situation 

to pine rocklands on the mainland is not 

straightforward, but suggests that 

similar changes to species composition 

could arise if current projections of sea 

level rise occur and freshwater inputs 

are not sufficient to prevent salinization. 

Furthermore, Ross et al. (2009, pp. 471– 

478) suggested that interactions between 

sea level rise and pulse disturbances 

(e.g., storm surges) can cause vegetation 

to change sooner than projected based 

on sea level rise alone. Alexander (1953, 

pp. 133–138) attributed the demise of 

pinelands on northern Key Largo to 

salinization of the groundwater in 

response to sea level rise. Patterns of 

human development will also likely be 

significant factors influencing whether 

natural communities can move and 

persist (IPCC 2008, p. 57; USCCSP 2008, 

p. 7–6). 

The Science and Technology 

Committee of the Miami-Dade County 

Climate Change Task Force (Wanless et 

al. 2008, p. 1) recognized that 

significant sea level rise is a very real 

threat to the near future for Miami-Dade 

County. In a January 2008 statement, the 

committee warned that sea level is 

expected to rise at least 0.9 to 1.5 m (3 

to 5 ft) within this century (Wanless et 

al. 2008, p. 3). With a 0.9 to 1.2 m (3 

to 4 ft) rise in sea level (above baseline) 

in Miami-Dade County, spring high 

tides would be at about 6 to 7 ft; 

freshwater resources would be gone; the 

Everglades would be inundated on the 

west side of Miami-Dade County; the 

barrier islands would be largely 

inundated; storm surges would be 

devastating; and landfill sites would be 

exposed to erosion, contaminating 

marine and coastal environments. 

Freshwater and coastal mangrove 

wetlands will not keep up with or offset 

sea level rise of 2 ft per century or 

greater. With a 5-ft rise (spring tides at 

nearly +8 ft), the land area of MiamiDade County will be extremely 

diminished (Wanless et al. 2008, pp. 3– 

4). 

Drier conditions and increased 

variability in precipitation associated 

with climate change are expected to 

hamper successful regeneration of 

forests and cause shifts in vegetation 

types through time (Wear and Greis 

2012, p. 39). Although it has not been 

well studied, existing pine rocklands 

have probably been affected by 

reductions in the mean water table. 

Climate changes are also forecasted to 

extend fire seasons and the frequency of 

large fire events throughout the Coastal 

Plain (Wear and Greis 2012, p. 43). 

These factors will likely cause an 

increase in wildfires and exacerbate 

complications related to prescribed 

burning (i.e., less predictability related 

to rainfall, fuel moisture, and winds) or 

other management needed to restore and 

maintain habitat for the four plants. 

While restoring fire to pine rocklands is 

essential to the long-term viability of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

populations, increases in the scale, 

frequency, or severity of wildfires could 

have negative effects on these plants 

considering their general vulnerability 

due to small population size, restricted 

range, few occurrences, and relative 

isolation. Big, hot wildfires can destroy 

essential habitat features of pine 

rockland habitat. In addition, hot burns 

with long residence times (which are 

more likely under wildfire conditions) 

can also sterilize the soil seed bank and 

cause a demographic crash in plant 

populations. 

Alternative Future Landscape Models 

To accommodate the large uncertainty 

in sea level rise projections, researchers 

must estimate effects from a range of 

scenarios. Various model scenarios 

developed at MIT and GeoAdaptive Inc. 

have projected possible trajectories of 

future transformation of the south 

Florida landscape by 2060 based upon 

four main drivers: Climate change, shifts 

in planning approaches and regulations, 

human population change, and 

variations in financial resources for 

conservation. The scenarios do not 

account for temperature, precipitation, 

or species’ habitat shifts due to climate 

change, and no storm surge effects are 

considered. The current MIT scenarios 

range from 0.09 to 1.0 m (0.3 to 3.3 ft) 

of sea level rise by 2060 (Vargas-Moreno 

and Flaxman 2010, pp. 1–6). 

Based on the most recent estimates of 

anticipated sea level rise, the upward 

trend in recent projections toward the 

higher range of earlier sea level rise 

estimates (discussed above), and the 

data available to us at this time, we 

evaluated potential effects of sea level 

rise using the current ‘‘high’’ range MIT 

scenario as well as comparing elevations 

of remaining pine rockland fragments 

and extant and historical occurrences of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. 

The ‘‘high’’ range (or ‘‘worst case’’) MIT 

scenario assumes high sea level rise (1 

m (3.3 ft) by 2060), low financial 

resources, a ‘business as usual’ 

approach to planning, and a doubling of 

human population. 

The rate of sea level rise will increase 

as time passes. This is due to 

atmospheric and ocean warming and the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46709 

thermal expansion properties of water. 

In sea level rise models, the rate of sea 

level rise is projected to increase 

dramatically around mid-century. 

Most populations of Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, and Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum occur at 

elevations less than 2 m (6.6 ft) above 

sea level, making these species highly 

susceptible to increased storm surges 

and related impacts associated with sea 

level rise. Areas of the Miami Rock 

Ridge in Miami-Dade County (located to 

the east of ENP and BCNP) are higher 

elevation (maximum of 7 m (22 ft) above 

sea level) than those in BCNP (FNAI 

2010, p. 62). However, plant 

communities along south Florida’s lowlying coasts are organized along a mild 

gradient in elevation, transitioning from 

mangroves at sea level to salinityintolerant interior habitats, including 

pine rocklands and hardwood 

hammocks within an elevation change 

of 2 m (6.5 ft) above sea level. As a 

result, a rise of 1 m (3.3 ft) in sea level 

is expected to render coastal systems 

susceptible to increased erosion and 

cause these areas to transition from 

upland forest habitats to saline wetland 

habitats. Prior to the onset of sustained 

inundation, there will be irreversible 

changes in vegetation composition 

within these habitats. Shifts in habitat 

toward hydric and saline ecosystems 

may occur decades in advance of full 

inundation, rendering the habitat 

unsuitable for salt-intolerant species, 

including S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana (Saha et 

al. 2011, pp. 169–184). As interior 

habitats become more saline, there will 

be a reduction in freshwater inflows to 

the estuarine portions of the Everglades 

and BCNP, accelerating losses in 

salinity-intolerant coastal plant 

communities (Saha et al. 2011, pp. 169– 

184); such as S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, or D. 

carthagenensis var. floridana. 

Actual impacts may be greater or less 

than anticipated based upon the high 

variability of factors involved (e.g., sea 

level rise, human population growth) 

and assumptions made, but based on the 

current ‘‘high’’ range MIT scenario, pine 

rocklands, marl prairies, and associated 

habitats along the coast in central and 

southern Miami-Dade County would 

become inundated. The ‘‘new’’ sea level 

would occur at the southern end of the 

Miami Rock Ridge (the eastern edge of 

the Everglades). However, in decades 

prior to the fully anticipated sea level 

rise, changes in the water table and 

increased soil salinity from partial 

inundation and storm surge will result 

in vegetation shifts within BCNP, ENP, 

and conservation lands on the southern 

Miami Rock Ridge. Inundation will 

result in pine rocklands gaining 

increased marl prairie characteristics. 

Marl prairies, in turn, will transition to 

sawgrass or more hydric conditions, due 

to increased inundation. As a result, 

species such as Digitaria pauciflora and 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, which are most 

abundant within the ecotone between 

pine rocklands and marl prairies, will 

gradually decline as these habitat types 

merge and eventually disappear. Under 

this scenario, by 2060, all extant 

populations of Digitaria pauciflora, as 

well as the largest populations of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana, would 

likely be lost or significantly impacted 

by shifts in vegetation communities. 

Populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum 

ssp. austrofloridense, Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana would 

likely remain only at the highest 

elevations along the Miami Rock Ridge. 

In addition, many existing pine 

rockland fragments are projected to be 

developed for housing as the human 

population grows and adjusts to 

changing sea levels under this scenario. 

Further direct losses to extant 

populations of all four plants are 

expected due to habitat loss and 

modification from sea level rise through 

2100. We analyzed existing sites that 

support populations of the four plants 

using the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Sea Level Rise and Coastal Impacts 

viewer. Below we discuss general 

implications of sea level rise within the 

range of projections discussed above on 

the current distribution of these species. 

The NOAA tool uses 1-foot increments. 

Our analysis is based on 0.91 m (3 ft) 

and 1.8 m (6 ft) of sea level rise. 

Based on a higher sea level rise of 1.8 

m (6 ft), as projected by NOAA, much 

larger portions of urban Miami-Dade 

County, including both extant 

populations of Digitaria pauciflora in 

ENP and BCNP, as well as conservation 

areas, such as Navy Wells Pineland 

Preserve, will be inundated by 2100. As 

a result, the species would be extinct. 

Several extant occurrences of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Chamaesyce deltoidea 

ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana would 

also be lost. The western part of urban 

Miami-Dade County would also be 

inundated (barring creation of sea walls 

or other barriers), creating a virtual 

island of the Miami Rock Ridge. 

Following a 1.8-m (6 ft) rise in sea 

level, approximately 75 percent of 

presently extant pine rocklands on the 

Miami Rock Ridge would still remain 

above sea level. However, an unknown 

percentage of remaining pine rockland 

fragments would be negatively impacted 

by water table and soil salinization, 

which would be further exacerbated due 

to isolation from mainland fresh water 

flows. 

Projections of sea level rise above 1.8 

m (6 ft) indicate that very little pine 

rockland would remain, with the vast 

majority either being inundated or 

experiencing vegetation shifts, resulting 

in the extirpation of all known 

populations of Digitaria pauciflora, 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Chamaesyce deltoidea 

ssp. pinetorum, and Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana. 

Environmental Stochasticity 

Endemic species whose populations 

exhibit a high degree of isolation and 

narrow geographic distribution, such as 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea pinetorum, and 

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, are 

extremely susceptible to extinction from 

both random and nonrandom 

catastrophic natural or human-caused 

events. Small populations of species, 

without positive growth rates, are 

considered to have a high extinction 

risk from site-specific demographic and 

environmental stochasticity (Lande 

1993, pp. 911–927). 

The climate of southern Florida is 

driven by a combination of local, 

regional, and global events, regimes, and 

oscillations. There are three main 

‘‘seasons’’: (1) The wet season, which is 

hot, rainy, and humid from June 

through October; (2) the official 

hurricane season that extends one 

month beyond the wet season (June 1 

through November 30), with peak 

season being August and September; 

and (3) the dry season, which is drier 

and cooler, from November through 

May. In the dry season, periodic surges 

of cool and dry continental air masses 

influence the weather with shortduration rain events followed by long 

periods of dry weather. 

Florida is considered the most 

vulnerable State in the United States to 

hurricanes and tropical storms 

(Stefanova et al. 2017, pp. 1–4) Based on 

data gathered from 1856 to 2008, Florida 

had the highest climatological 

probabilities of coastal States being 

impacted by a hurricane or major 

hurricane in all years over the 152-year 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46710 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

timespan, with a 51 percent probability 

of a hurricane (Category 1 or 2) and a 

21 percent probability of a major 

hurricane (Category 3 or higher) 

(Klotzbach and Gray 2009, p. 28). From 

1856 to 2015, Florida actually 

experienced 109 hurricanes and 36 

major hurricanes. Given the low 

population sizes and restricted ranges of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

within south Florida, these species are 

at substantial risk from hurricanes, 

storm surges, and other extreme 

weather. Depending on the location and 

intensity of a hurricane or other severe 

weather event, it is possible that the 

plants could become extirpated or 

extinct. 

Hurricanes, storm surge, and extreme 

high tide events are natural events that 

can negatively impact these four plants. 

Hurricanes and tropical storms can 

modify habitat (e.g., through storm 

surge) and have the potential to destroy 

entire populations, physically washing 

them away or leaving soil too saline for 

them to persist. Climate change may 

lead to increased frequency and 

duration of severe storms (Golladay et 

al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, 

p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015). 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

experienced these disturbances 

historically, but had the benefit of more 

abundant and contiguous habitat to 

buffer them from extirpations. With 

most of the historical habitat having 

been destroyed or modified, the few 

remaining populations of these species 

could face local extirpations due to 

stochastic events. 

Other processes to be affected by 

climate change, related to 

environmental stochasticity, include 

temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal 

timing, and distribution), and storms 

(frequency and intensity). Temperatures 

are projected to increase by 2–5 °C (3.6– 

9 °F) for North America by the end of 

this century (IPCC 2013, pp. 5–8, 20). 

These factors will likely cause an 

increase in wildfires and exacerbate 

complications related to prescribed 

burning or other management needed to 

restore and maintain habitat for the four 

plants. Based upon modeling, Atlantic 

hurricane and tropical storm 

frequencies are expected to decrease 

(Knutson et al. 2008, pp. 1–21). By 

2100, there should be a 10 to 30 percent 

decrease in hurricane frequency. 

Hurricane frequency is expected to drop 

due to more wind shear impeding initial 

hurricane development. However, 

hurricane winds are expected to 

increase by 5 to 10 percent, which will 

increase storm surge heights. This is due 

to more hurricane energy being 

available for intense hurricanes. In 

addition to climate change, weather 

variables are extremely influenced by 

other natural cycles, such as El Nin ̃ o 

Southern Oscillation with a frequency 

of every 4–7 years, solar cycle (every 11 

years), and the Atlantic Multi-decadal 

Oscillation. All of these cycles influence 

changes in Floridian weather. The exact 

magnitude, direction, and distribution 

of all of these changes at the regional 

level are difficult to project. 

Freezing Temperatures 

Occasional freezing temperatures that 

occur in south Florida pose a risk to 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana, 

causing damage or death to individual 

plants. Under normal circumstances, 

occasional freezing temperatures would 

not result in a significant impact to 

populations of these plants; however, 

the small size of some populations 

means the loss from freezing events of 

even a few individuals can reduce the 

viability of the population. 

Hydrology and Everglades Restoration 

Hydrology is a key ecosystem 

component that affects rare plant 

distributions and their viability (Gann et 

al. 2006, p. 4). Historically, sheet flow 

from Shark River Slough and Taylor 

Slough did not reach the upland 

portions of Long Pine Key, but during 

the wet season increased surface water 

flow in sloughs generated a rise in 

ground water across the region (Gann et 

al. 2006, p. 4). Water flow through Long 

Pine Key was originally concentrated in 

marl prairies, traversing in a north-south 

direction; however, construction of the 

main ENP road dissected Long Pine Key 

in an east-west direction, thereby 

impeding sheet flow across this area 

(Gann et al. 2006, p. 4). Water was either 

impounded to the north of the main 

ENP road or diverted around the 

southern portion of Long Pine Key 

through Taylor Slough and Shark River 

Slough (Gann et al. 2006, p. 4). As 

artificial drainage became more 

widespread, however, regional 

groundwater supplies declined. 

While projects designed to restore the 

historical hydrology of the Everglades 

and other natural systems in southern 

Florida (collectively known as the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan (CERP)) are beneficial to the 

Everglades ecosystem, some may 

produce collateral impacts to extant 

pine rockland, marl prairies, and 

associated habitats within the region 

through inundation or increased 

hydroperiods. The effects of changes in 

regional hydrology through restoration 

may have impacts on the four plants 

and their habitats. Sadle (2012, pers. 

comm.) suggested various CERP projects 

(such as C–111 spreader canal; L–31N 

seepage barrier), specifically the 

operation of pumps and associated 

detention areas along the ENP 

boundary, may influence (through 

excessive water discharges) select 

portions of eastern Long Pine Key. 

Increased and longer-duration 

hydroperiods within the pine rockland 

and marl prairie habitats where these 

species occur may lead to a reduction in 

the amount of suitable habitat, a 

potential reduction in the area occupied 

and a reduction in the number of 

individuals found in ENP and BCNP. 

Conversely, Maschinski and Lange 

(2015, pp. 31–33) observed an increase 

in Digitaria pauciflora populations 

within ENP that may have been 

associated with drier conditions. In an 

effort to establish a baseline assessment 

of future hydrologic modifications, longterm monitoring transects and plots for 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum were established in Long 

Pine Key between 2003 and 2008 (Gann 

2015, p. 169). 

Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other 

Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting 

Continued Existence 

NPS, the Service, Miami-Dade 

County, and the State of Florida have 

ongoing nonnative plant management 

programs to reduce threats on public 

lands, as funding and resources allow. 

In Miami-Dade County, nonnative, 

invasive plant management is very 

active, with a goal to treat all publically 

owned properties at least once a year 

and more often in many cases. IRC and 

FTBG conducts research and monitoring 

in various natural areas within MiamiDade County and the Florida Keys for 

various endangered plant species and 

nonnative, invasive species. For the four 

plants, monitoring detects declines that 

lead to small population size, changes 

in habitat due to sea level rise, and 

declines due to stochastic events. For 

nonnatives, monitoring is an integral 

part of efforts to detect and control 

invasive plant and animal species. 

FTBG has provided 16,908 Digitaria 

pauciflora seeds, 730 Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum seeds (from 

within ENP), and 32,703 Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana seeds 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46711 

(from multiple sites) to the National 

Center for Genetic Resources 

Preservation (NCGRP) for use in ex situ 

conservation and ecological studies 

(Lange 2016, pers. comm.). 

Summary of Factor E 

Threats from other natural or 

manmade factors to these four plants 

include nonnative, invasive plants; 

management practices (such as 

mowing); recreation (including ORV 

use), effects from small population size 

and isolation; limited geographic range; 

and stochastic events including 

hurricanes, storm surges, and wildfires. 

Additionally, these plants are 

particularly vulnerable to the effects of 

climate change, including sea level rise, 

as changes in the water table, increased 

soil salinity from partial inundation, 

and storm surge will likely result in 

vegetation shifts in the decades prior to 

the fully anticipated sea level rise. Some 

of these threats (e.g., nonnative species) 

may be reduced on public lands due to 

active programs by Federal, State, and 

County land managers. Many of the 

remaining populations of these plants 

are small and geographically isolated, 

and genetic variability is likely low, 

increasing the inherent risk due to 

overall low resilience of these plants. 

The threats act together to impact 

populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum 

ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 

pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis 

var. floridana. 

Cumulative Effects of Threats 

When two or more threats affect 

populations of Sideroxylon reclinatum 

ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 

pauciflora, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum, and Dalea carthagenensis 

var. floridana, the effects of those 

threats could interact or become 

compounded, producing a cumulative 

adverse effect that is greater than the 

impact of either threat alone. The most 

obvious cases in which cumulative 

adverse effects would be significant are 

those in which small populations 

(Factor E) are affected by threats that 

result in destruction or modification of 

habitat (Factor A), ORV damage (Factor 

E), or stochastic events, such as 

hurricanes, storm surges, wildfires 

(Factor E). The limited distributions 

and/or small population sizes of many 

populations of S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and D. 

carthagenensis var. floridana make 

them extremely susceptible to the 

detrimental effects of further habitat 

modification, degradation, and loss, as 

well as other anthropogenic threats. 

Mechanisms leading to the decline of S. 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, D. 

pauciflora, C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and D. carthagenensis var. floridana, as 

discussed above, range from local (e.g., 

agriculture) to regional (e.g., 

development, fragmentation, nonnative 

species) to global influences (e.g., effects 

of climate change, sea level rise). The 

synergistic effects of threats, such as 

impacts from hurricanes on a species 

with a limited distribution and small 

populations, make it difficult to predict 

population viability. While these 

stressors may act in isolation, it is more 

probable that many stressors are acting 

simultaneously (or in combination) on 

populations of S. reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, D. pauciflora, C. 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, and D. 

carthagenensis var. floridana, making 

them more vulnerable. 

Determination of Status 

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

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or threatened 

species and should be included on the 

Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (i.e., 

‘‘listed’’). Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on (A) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) Disease or 

predation; (D) The inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above threat factors, singly or in 

combination. 

Determination of Status Throughout All 

of the Species’ Ranges 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats to Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. 

Numerous populations of the four 

plants have been extirpated from these 

species’ historical ranges, and habitat 

destruction and modification resulting 

from human population growth and 

development, agricultural conversion, 

and inadequate fire management (Factor 

A); competition from nonnative, 

invasive species (Factor E); changes in 

climatic conditions, including sea level 

rise and changes in hydrology (Factor 

E); and natural stochastic events, 

including hurricanes, storm surges, and 

wildfires (Factor E) are threats to the 

existing populations. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms have not led to a reduction 

or removal of threats impacting the four 

plants (see Factor D discussion, above). 

These threats are ongoing, rangewide, 

and expected to continue in the future. 

A significant percentage of populations 

of the four plants are relatively small 

and isolated from one another, and their 

ability to recolonize suitable habitat is 

unlikely without human intervention, if 

at all. The threats have had and will 

continue to have substantial adverse 

effects on the four plants and their 

habitats. Although attempts are ongoing 

to alleviate or minimize some of these 

threats at certain locations, all 

populations appear to be impacted by 

one or more threats. 

Due to the stressors described in 

detail above, Dalea carthagenensis var. 

floridana is presently in danger of 

extinction throughout its entire range 

due to the immediacy and severity of 

threats currently impacting the species. 

The risk of extinction is high because 

there are few (9) extant populations and 

the majority of the populations are small 

and isolated, and have limited to no 

potential for recolonization. Therefore, 

on the basis of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we list Dalea carthagenensis var. 

floridana as an endangered species in 

accordance with sections 3(6) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a 

threatened species status is not 

appropriate for this species because of 

the contracted range and small 

population size of Dalea carthagenensis 

var. floridana and because the threats 

are occurring rangewide, are ongoing, 

and are expected to continue into the 

future. 

Sideroxlyon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum face threats similar to Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana. However, 

we find that endangered species status 

is not appropriate for these three 

species. While we have evidence of 

threats under Factors A and E affecting 

the species, large populations of these 

three species are protected and actively 

managed at ENP and BCNP (Sideroxylon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, ENP 

(10,000–100,000 plants); Digitaria 

pauciflora, BCNP (≤10,000 plants) and 

ENP (100,000–200,000 plants); and 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

ENP (10,000–100,000 plants)). Shortand medium-term threats to these three 

plants in these protected areas are being 

addressed. However, sea level rise is 

projected to have profound negative 

effects on the habitat of these plants in 

the foreseeable future. Decades prior to 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46712 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

inundation, pine rocklands and 

associated habitats are likely to undergo 

habitat transitions related to climate 

change, including changes to hydrology 

and increasing vulnerability to storm 

surge. In addition, many existing habitat 

fragments located in urban areas are 

projected to be developed for housing as 

the human population grows and 

adjusts to changing sea levels under this 

scenario. Therefore, based on the best 

available information, we find that 

Sideroxlyon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum are likely to become 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their ranges, and 

we list these species as threatened 

species in accordance with sections 

3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Determination of Status in a Significant 

Portion of the Range 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as any species that is ‘‘in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range’’ and a 

threatened species as any species ‘‘that 

is likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ The 

phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ 

is not defined by the Act, and a district 

court has held that aspects of the 

Service’s Final Policy on Interpretation 

of the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its 

Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s 

Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species and 

‘‘Threatened Species’’ (79 FR 37577 

(July 1, 2014)) (SPR Policy) were not 

valid. Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Jewell, No. 14–cv–02506–RM (D. Ariz. 

Mar. 29, 2017) (Pygmy-Owl Decision). 

Although the court’s order in that case 

has not yet gone into effect, if the court 

denies the pending motion for 

reconsideration, the SPR Policy would 

become vacated. Therefore, we have 

examined the plain language of the Act 

and court decisions addressing the 

Service’s application of the SPR phrase 

in various listing decisions, and for 

purposes of this rulemaking we are 

applying the interpretation set out 

below for the phrase ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ and its context in 

determining whether or not a species is 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species. Because the interpretation we 

are applying is consistent with the SPR 

Policy, we summarize herein the bases 

for our interpretation, and also refer the 

public to the SPR Policy itself for a 

more-detailed explanation of our 

reasons for interpreting the phrase in 

this way. 

An important factor that influences 

the question of whether an SPR analysis 

is necessary here is what the 

consequence would be if the Service 

were to find that Dalea carthagenensis 

var. floridana, Sideroxlyon reclinatum 

ssp. austrofloridense, Digitaria 

pauciflora, or Chamaesyce deltoidea 

ssp. pinetorum is in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so throughout a 

significant portion of its range. Two 

district court decisions have evaluated 

whether the outcomes of the Service’s 

SPR determinations were reasonable. As 

described in the SPR Policy, both courts 

found that, once the Service determines 

that a ‘‘species’’—which can include a 

species, subspecies, or DPS under ESA 

Section 3(16)—meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species,’’ the species must be listed in 

its entirety and the Act’s protections 

applied consistently to all members of 

that species (subject to modification of 

protections through special rules under 

sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). See 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. 

Supp. 2d 1207, 1222 (D. Mont. 2010) 

(delisting of the Northern Rocky 

Mountains DPS of gray wolf; appeal 

dismissed as moot because of public law 

vacating the listing, 2012 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 26769 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2012)); 

WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 09– 

00574–PHX–FJM, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

105253, 15–16 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010) 

(Gunnison’s prairie dog). The issue has 

not been addressed by a Federal Court 

of Appeals. 

Consistent with the district court case 

law, we interpret that the consequence 

of finding that Dalea carthagenensis var. 

floridana, Sideroxlyon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, or 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum is 

in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so throughout a significant 

portion of its range would be that the 

entire species would be listed as an 

endangered species or threatened 

species, respectively, and the Act’s 

protections would be applied to all 

individuals of the species wherever 

found. Thus, the ‘‘throughout all’’ 

phrase and the SPR phrase provide two 

independent bases for listing. We note 

that in the Act Congress placed the ‘‘all’’ 

language before the SPR phrase in the 

definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and 

‘‘threatened species.’’ This suggests that 

Congress intended that an analysis 

based on consideration of the entire 

range should receive primary focus. 

Thus, the first step we undertook, 

above, in our assessment of the status of 

the species was to determine its status 

throughout all of its range. Having 

determined that Dalea carthagenensis 

var. floridana is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range and that 

Sideroxlyon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, or 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

are likely to become endangered species 

within the foreseeable future, we now 

examine whether it is necessary to 

determine their status throughout a 

significant portion of their ranges. 

Because we found Dalea 

carthagenensis var. floridana to be in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range, we do not need to conduct an 

analysis of whether there is any 

significant portion of its range where the 

species is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. This is consistent with the Act 

because when we find that a species is 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range (i.e., meets 

the definition of an endangered species), 

the species is experiencing highmagnitude threats across its range or 

threats are so high in particular areas 

that they severely affect the species 

across its range. Therefore, the species 

is in danger of extinction throughout 

every portion of its range and an 

analysis of whether there is any SPR 

that may be in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so would not result in 

a different outcome. 

Because we found that Sideroxlyon 

reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense, 

Digitaria pauciflora, and Chamaesyce 

deltoidea ssp. pinetorum are likely to 

become in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of their 

range, we do not need to conduct an 

analysis of whether there is any 

significant portion of the range where 

these species are in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. This interpretation is consistent 

with the Act for the following three 

reasons: (1) It ensures that the species 

qualifies for only one listing status; (2) 

it preserves a meaningful standard for 

when a portion of a species’ range is 

significant; and (3) it allows the Service 

to apply the appropriate level of 

protection to the species. 

Critical Habitat Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. Our 

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state 

that the designation of critical habitat is 

not prudent when one or both of the 

following situations exist: 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46713 

(1) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or 

(2) Such designation of critical habitat 

would not be beneficial to the species. 

In determining whether a designation 

would not be beneficial, the factors the 

Service may consider include but are 

not limited to: Whether the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 

is not a threat to the species, or whether 

any areas meet the definition of ‘‘critical 

habitat.’’ 

Prudency of Critical Habitat 

There is currently no imminent threat 

of take attributed to collection or 

vandalism identified under Factor B for 

these species, and identification and 

mapping of critical habitat is not 

expected to initiate any such threat. In 

the absence of finding that the 

designation of critical habitat would 

increase threats to a species, we next 

determine whether such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. We have determined that 

there are habitat-based threats to these 

species identified under Factor A. 

Therefore, we find that the designation 

of critical habitat would be beneficial to 

these species through the provisions of 

section 7 of the Act. Because we have 

determined that the designation of 

critical habitat will not likely increase 

the degree of threat to the four plant 

species and would be beneficial, we 

find that designation of critical habitat 

is prudent for Dalea carthagenensis var. 

floridana, Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation is 

prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act, we must find whether critical 

habitat for the four plant species is 

determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is 

not determinable when one or both of 

the following situations exist: 

(i) Information sufficient to perform 

required analysis of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

identify any area that meets the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat 

after taking into consideration the 

economic impact, national security 

impact, and any other relevant impact of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. In accordance with the Act and 

our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. A careful assessment 

of the economic impacts that may occur 

due to a critical habitat designation is 

still ongoing, and we are in the process 

of acquiring the necessary information 

needed to perform that assessment. The 

information sufficient to perform a 

required analysis of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking. Accordingly, we 

find that critical habitat for these 

species, in accordance with section 

4(a)(3)(A) of the Act, to be not 

determinable at this time. When critical 

habitat is not determinable, the Act 

allows the Service an additional year to 

publish a critical habitat designation (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act calls for the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed and 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan. The recovery outline guides the 

immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 

to address continuing or new threats to 

the species, as new substantive 

information becomes available. The 

recovery plan also identifies recovery 

criteria for review of when a species 

may be ready for downlisting or 

delisting, and methods for monitoring 

recovery progress. Recovery plans also 

establish a framework for agencies to 

coordinate their recovery efforts and 

provide estimates of the cost of 

implementing recovery tasks. Recovery 

teams (composed of species experts, 

Federal and State agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

stakeholders) are often established to 

develop recovery plans. When 

completed, a recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, and the final recovery 

plan will be available on our Web site 

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered) or 

from our South Florida Ecological 

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

Following publication of this final 

listing rule, funding for recovery actions 

will be available from a variety of 

sources, including Federal budgets, 

State programs, and cost share grants for 

non-Federal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida 

will be eligible for Federal funds to 

implement management actions that 

promote the protection or recovery of 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. 

Information on our grant programs that 

are available to aid species recovery can 

be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
46714 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on these plants 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is listed as an endangered or threatened 

species and with respect to its critical 

habitat, if any is designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 

7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within these 

species’ habitat that may require 

consultation as described in the 

preceding paragraph and include 

management and any other landscapealtering activities on Federal lands 

administered by the National Park 

Service (ENP and BCNP), Department of 

Defense, and Department of Homeland 

Security (United States Coast Guard); 

issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act 

(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 

construction and management of gas 

pipeline and power line rights-of-way 

by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission; construction and 

maintenance of roads or highways by 

the Federal Highway Administration; 

and disaster relief efforts conducted by 

the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

With respect to endangered plants, 

prohibitions outlined at 50 CFR 17.61 

make it illegal for any person subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States to 

import or export, transport in interstate 

or foreign commerce in the course of a 

commercial activity, sell or offer for sale 

in interstate or foreign commerce, or to 

remove and reduce to possession any 

such plant species from areas under 

Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for 

endangered plants, the Act prohibits 

malicious damage or destruction of any 

such species on any area under Federal 

jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, 

digging up, or damaging or destroying of 

any such species on any other area in 

knowing violation of any State law or 

regulation, or in the course of any 

violation of a State criminal trespass 

law. Exceptions to these prohibitions 

are outlined in 50 CFR 17.62. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered plants under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.62. With regard to endangered 

plants, the Service may issue a permit 

authorizing any activity otherwise 

prohibited by 50 CFR 17.61 for scientific 

purposes or for enhancing the 

propagation or survival of endangered 

plants. 

With respect to threatened plants, 50 

CFR 17.71 provides that all of the 

provisions in 50 CFR 17.61 shall apply 

to threatened plants. These provisions 

make it illegal for any person subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States to 

import or export, transport in interstate 

or foreign commerce in the course of a 

commercial activity, sell or offer for sale 

in interstate or foreign commerce, or to 

remove and reduce to possession any 

such plant species from areas under 

Federal jurisdiction. However, there is 

one exception for threatened plants. 

Seeds of cultivated specimens of species 

treated as threatened shall be exempt 

from all the provisions of 50 CFR 17.61, 

provided that a statement that the seeds 

are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ accompanies 

the seeds or their container during the 

course of any activity otherwise subject 

to these regulations. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened plants under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.72. A permit issued under this 

section must be for one of the following: 

scientific purposes, the enhancement of 

the propagation or survival of 

threatened species, economic hardship, 

botanical or horticultural exhibition, 

educational purposes, or other activities 

consistent with the purposes and policy 

of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify, to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a final listing on proposed 

and ongoing activities within the range 

of a listed species. Based on the best 

available information, the following 

actions are unlikely to result in a 

violation of section 9, if these activities 

are carried out in accordance with 

existing regulations and permit 

requirements; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Normal agricultural and 

silvicultural practices, including 

herbicide and pesticide use, which are 

carried out in accordance with any 

existing regulations, permit and label 

requirements, and best management 

practices; and 

(2) Normal residential landscape 

activities. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the South Florida Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for 

copies of regulations regarding listed 

species and inquiries about prohibitions 

and permits should be addressed to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services Division, 

Endangered Species Permits, 1875 

Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345 

(telephone 404–679–7140; fax 404–679– 

7081). 

With Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, Digitaria pauciflora, 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum, 

and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

listed under the Act, the State of 

Florida’s Endangered Species Act 

(Florida Statutes 581.185) is 

automatically invoked, which also 

prohibits take of these plants and 

encourages conservation by State 

government agencies. However, as 

discussed above, these plants are 

already listed as endangered on the 

State of Florida’s Regulated Plant Index. 

Further, the State may enter into 

agreements with Federal agencies to 

administer and manage any area 

required for the conservation, 

management, enhancement, or 

protection of endangered species 

(Florida Statutes 581.185). Funds for 

these activities could be made available 

under section 6 of the Act (Cooperation 

with the States). Thus, the Federal 

protection afforded to these plants by 

listing them as endangered or 

threatened species will be reinforced 

and supplemented by protection under 

State law. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 the Act; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Importing any such species into, or 

exporting any of the four plant species 

from, the United States. 

(2) Removing and reducing to 

possession any of the four plant species 

from areas under Federal jurisdiction; 

maliciously damaging or destroying 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46715 

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana on 

any such area; or removing, cutting, 

digging up, or damaging or destroying 

D. carthagenensis var. floridana on any 

other area in knowing violation of any 

law or regulation of any State or in the 

course of any violation of a State 

criminal trespass law. 

(3) Delivering, receiving, carrying, 

transporting, or shipping in interstate or 

foreign commerce, by any means 

whatsoever and in the course of a 

commercial activity, any of the four 

plant species. 

(4) Selling or offering for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any of 

the four plant species. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

need not be prepared in connection 

with listing a species as an endangered 

or threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

No tribal lands are affected by this final 

rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the South 

Florida Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the South 

Florida Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by adding entries 

for Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum, Dalea carthagenensis var. 

floridana, Digitaria pauciflora, and 

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense, in alphabetical order 

under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

FLOWERING PLANTS 

* * * * * * * 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 

pinetorum.

Pineland 

sandmat.

Wherever 

found.

T 82 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins]; 10/06/2017. 

*******

Dalea carthagenensis var. 

floridana.

Florida prairieclover.Wherever 

found.

E 82 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins]; 10/06/2017. 

*******

Digitaria pauciflora .................... Florida crabgrass.Wherever 

found.

T 82 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins]; 10/06/2017. 

*******

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 

austrofloridense.

Everglades 

bully.

Wherever 

found.

T 82 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins]; 10/06/2017. 

*******

Dated: September 7, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21617 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES