[Federal Register: August 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 155)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48896-48914]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12au10-20]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059; 92220-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018-AW26
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the
Tennessee Purple Coneflower From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring
plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
propose to remove the plant Echinacea tennesseensis (Tennessee purple
coneflower) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
due to recovery. This action is based on a thorough review of the best
available scientific and commercial data, which indicate that this
species' status has improved to the point that E. tennesseensis is not
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Our review of the status of
this species shows that all of the threats to the species have been
eliminated or significantly reduced, adequate regulatory mechanisms
exist, and populations are stable. We also announce the availability of
the draft post-delisting monitoring plan. This proposed rule completes
the 5-year status review for the species, initiated on September 21,
2007.
DATES: To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this
proposed rule, they must be received or postmarked on or before October
12, 2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at
the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, by
September 27, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Search for docket number FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059 and then follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept comments by e-mail or fax. We will post all
comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public
Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville Field Office, 446 Neal Street,
Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone (931) 528-6481. Individuals who are
hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Information
Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or other interested parties concerning
this proposed rule. The comments that will be most useful and likely to
influence our decisions are those that are supported by data or peer-
reviewed studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of,
applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific
as possible and explain the
[[Page 48897]]
basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with
your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial
data you reference or provide. In particular, we seek comments
concerning the following:
(1) Biological data concerning Echinacea tennesseensis.
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to
Echinacea tennesseensis, including but not limited to:
(a) Whether or not climate change is a threat to the species;
(b) What regional climate change models are available, and whether
they are reliable and credible to use as step-down models for assessing
the effect of climate change on the species and its habitat; and
(c) The extent of Federal and State protection and management that
would be provided to Echinacea tennesseensis as a delisted species.
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution,
population size, and trends of Echinacea tennesseensis, including the
locations of any additional populations of this species.
(4) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
Echinacea tennesseensis colonies that may impact or benefit the
species.
(5) The draft post-delisting monitoring plan.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that a
determination as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take
into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and
addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section. If you submit a comment via http://
www.regulations.gov, your entire comment--including any personal
identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. Please note
that comments posted to this Web site are not immediately viewable.
When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However,
the comment will not be publicly viewable until we post it, which might
not occur until several days after submission.
If you mail or hand-deliver a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the
electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we
receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions
on http://www.regulations.gov.
In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as
supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule will be
available for public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter
Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059, which is the docket
number for this rulemaking.
(2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to
view the comments and materials in person at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services' Cookeville Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public
hearings on this proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by the date shown in the DATES section of
this document. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if
any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those
hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register at least 15 days before the first hearing.
Previous Federal Actions
Section 12 of the Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be
endangered, threatened, or extinct. On July 1, 1975, the Service
published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27873) accepting the
Smithsonian report as a petition to list taxa named therein under
section 4(c)(2) [now 4(b)(3)] of the Act and announcing our intention
to review the status of those plants. Echinacea tennesseensis was
included in that report (40 FR 27880). Tennessee purple coneflower is
the common name for E. tennesseensis; however, we will primarily use
the scientific name of this species throughout this proposed rule to
clarify taxonomic issues or the legal status of the plant.
On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (41 FR 24524) to designate approximately 1,700 vascular plant
species, including Echinacea tennesseensis, as endangered under section
4 of the Act. On June 6, 1979, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (44 FR 32604) designating E. tennesseensis as endangered. The
final rule identified the following threats to E. tennesseensis: loss
of habitat due to residential and recreational development; collection
of the species for commercial or recreational purposes; grazing; no
State law protecting rare plants in Tennessee; and succession of cedar
glade communities in which E. tennesseensis occurred. On February 14,
1983, we published the Tennessee Coneflower Recovery Plan (Service
1983, 41 pp.), a revision of which we published on November 14, 1989
(Service 1989, 30 pp.). On September 21, 2007, we initiated a 5-year
status review of this species (72 FR 54057). This rule, once finalized,
will complete the status review.
For additional details on previous Federal actions, see discussion
under the Recovery Plan and Recovery Plan Implementation sections
below.
Species Information
A member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae), Echinacea
tennesseensis is a perennial herb with a long and fusiform (i.e.,
thickened toward the middle and tapered towards either end), blackened
root. In late summer, the species bears showy purple flower heads on
one-to-many hairy branches. Linear to lance-shaped leaves up to 20
centimeters (cm; 8 inches (in.)) long and 1.5 cm (0.6 in.) wide arise
from the base of E. tennesseensis and are beset with coarse hairs,
especially along the
[[Page 48898]]
margins. The ray flowers (i.e., petals surrounding the darker purple
flowers of the central disc) are pink to purple and spread horizontally
or arch slightly forward from the disc to a length of 2-4 cm (0.8-1.8
in.).
The following description of this species' life history is
summarized from Hemmerly (1986, pp. 193-195): seeds are shed from
plants during fall and winter and begin germinating in early March of
the following year, producing numerous seedlings by late March. Most of
the seedling growth occurs during the first 6 or 7 weeks of the first
year, during which plants will grow to a height of up to 2-3 cm (0.8-
1.2 in). Plants remain in a rosette stage and root length increases
rapidly during these weeks. Flowering stems and seeds are produced on
some plants by the end of the second season. Individuals of Echinacea
tennesseensis can live up to at least 6 years, but the maximum lifespan
is probably much longer (Baskauf 1993, p. 37).
Echinacea tennesseensis was first collected in 1878 in Rutherford
County, Tennessee, by Dr. A. Gattinger and later described by Beadle
(1898, p. 359) as Brauneria tennesseensis on the basis of specimens
collected by H. Eggert in 1897 from ``a dry, gravelly hill'' near the
town of LaVergne. Fernald (1900, pp. 86-87) did not accept Beadle's
identification of B. tennesseensis as a distinct species, instead he
merged it with the more widespread E. angustifolia. This treatment was
upheld by many taxonomists until McGregor (1968, pp. 139-141)
classified the taxon as E. tennesseensis (Beadle) Small, based on
examination of materials from collections discussed above and from
collections by R. McVaugh in 1936. As McGregor (1968, p. 141) was
unable to locate any plants while conducting searches during the months
of June through August, 1959-1961, he concluded that the species was
very rare or possibly extinct in his monograph of the genus Echinacea.
The species went unnoticed until its rediscovery in a cedar glade in
Davidson County, Tennessee as reported by Baskin et al. (1968, p. 70),
and subsequently in Wilson County, Tennessee by Quarterman and Hemmerly
(1971, pp. 304-305), who also noted that the area believed to be the
type locality (Rutherford County) for the species was destroyed by the
construction of a trailer park.
More recently, Binns et al. (2002, pp. 610-632) revised the
taxonomy of the genus Echinacea and in doing so reduced E.
tennesseensis to one of five varieties of E. pallida. Their taxonomic
treatment considers E. pallida var. tennesseensis (Beadle) Small to be
a synonym of their E. tennesseensis (Beadle) Binns, B. R. Baum, &
Arnason, comb. nov. (Binns et al. 2002, p. 629). However, this has not
been unanimously accepted among plant taxonomists (Estes 2008, pers.
com.; Weakley 2008, pp. 139-140). Kim et al. (2004) examined the
genetic diversity of Echinacea species and their results conflicted
with the division of the genus by Binns et al. (2002, pp. 617-632) into
two subgenera, Echinacea and Pallida, one of which--Echinacea--included
only E. purpurea. Mechanda et al. (2004, p. 481) concluded that their
analysis of genetic diversity within Echinacea only supported
recognition of one of the five varieties of E. pallida that Binns et
al. (2002, pp. 626-629) described, namely E. pallida var.
tennesseensis. While Mechanda et al. (2004, p. 481) would also reduce
E. tennesseensis from specific to varietal status, the conflicting
results between these two investigations point to a lack of consensus
regarding the appropriate taxonomic rank of taxa within the genus
Echinacea. Because clear acceptance of the taxonomic revision by Binns
et al. (2002, pp. 610-632) is lacking, and Flora of North America
(http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_
id=250066491, accessed December 3, 2009) and a flora under development
by Weakley (2008, pp. 139-140) both retain specific status for E.
tennesseensis, we will continue to recognize E. tennesseensis as a
species during this rulemaking process until a change in the best
available scientific data indicates we should do otherwise.
Echinacea tennesseensis is restricted to limestone barrens and
cedar glades of the Central Basin, Interior Low Plateau Physiographic
Province, in Davidson, Rutherford, and Wilson Counties in Tennessee
(Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) 2006, p.
2). These middle Tennessee habitats typically occur on thin plates of
Lebanon limestone that are more or less horizontally bedded, though
interrupted by vertical fissures in which sinkholes may be readily
formed (Quarterman 1986, p. 124). Somers et al. (1986, pp. 180-189)
described seven plant community types from their study of 10 cedar
glades in middle Tennessee. They divided those communities into xeric
(dry) communities, which occurred in locations with no soil or soil
depth less than 5 cm (2 in.), and subxeric (moderately dry) communities
that occurred on soils deeper than 5 cm (2 in.) (Somers et al. 1986, p.
186). Quarterman (1986, p. 124) noted that soil depths greater than 20
cm (8 in.) in the vicinity of cedar glades tend to support plant
communities dominated by eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and
other woody species. Somers et al. (1986, p. 191) found E.
tennesseensis in four of the community types they classified, but could
not determine the fidelity of the species to a particular community
type because it only occurred on three of the glades they studied and
was infrequently encountered in plots within those sites. The
communities where E. tennesseensis occurred spanned two xeric and two
subxeric types. The xeric community types, named for the dominant
species that either alone or combined constituted greater than 50
percent cover, were the (1) Nostoc commune (blue-green algae)-
Sporobolus vaginiflorus (poverty dropseed) and (2) Dalea gattingeri
(purpletassels) communities. The subxeric types were the (1) S.
vaginiflorus and (2) Pleurochaete squarrosa (square pleurochaete moss)
communities. Mean soil depths across these communities ranged from 4.1
to 7.7 cm (1.6 to 3.0 in.) (Somers et al. 1986, pp. 186-188).
Echinacea tennesseensis was only known from three locations, one
each in Davidson, Rutherford, and Wilson Counties, when the species was
listed as endangered in 1979 (44 FR 32604; June 6, 1979). In 1989, when
the species' recovery plan was completed, there were five extant
populations ranging in size from approximately 3,700 to 89,000 plants
and consisting of one to three colonies each (Clebsch 1988, p. 14;
Service 1989, p. 2). The recovery plan defined a population as a group
of colonies in which the probability of gene exchange through cross
pollination is high, and a colony was defined as all E. tennesseensis
plants found at a single site that are separated from other plants
within the population by unsuitable habitat (Service 1989, p. 1). While
analysis of genetic variability within E. tennesseensis did not reveal
high levels of differentiation among these populations (Baskauf et al.
1994, p. 186), recovery efforts have been implemented and tracked with
respect to these geographically defined populations. The geographic
distribution of these populations and their colonies was updated in a
TDEC (1996, Appendix I) status survey to include all known colonies at
that time, including those from a sixth population introduced into
glades at the Stones River National Battlefield in Rutherford County.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, we have followed these
population delineations and have assigned most colonies that have been
[[Page 48899]]
discovered since the status survey was completed to the geographically
closest population.
The six Echinacea tennesseensis populations occur within an
approximately 400 square kilometer (km\2\; 154 square miles (mi\2\))
area and include between 2 and 11 colonies each. Surveys conducted by
TDEC and the Service in 2005 confirmed the presence of E. tennesseensis
at 36 colonies, and the number of flowering stems in each was counted
(TDEC 2006, pp. 4-5). Fifteen of these are natural colonies; the
remaining 21 have been established through introductions for the
purpose of recovering E. tennesseensis (TDEC 1991, pp. 3-7; TDEC 1996,
Appendix I; Lincicome 2008, pers. com.). Three of the 21 introduced
colonies constitute the sixth population that was established at a
Designated State Natural Area (DSNA) in the Stones River National
Battlefield (TDEC 1996, Appendix I).
We do not consider 2 of the 21 introduced colonies as contributing
to recovery and do not include them in our analysis of the current
status of E. tennesseensis. One of these two excluded colonies is
located in Marshall County, well outside of the known range of the
species. The other excluded colony is located in Rutherford County, and
is believed to contain hybrids with E. simulata (see the Recovery Plan
Implementation section below for additional information). Excluding
these 2 colonies brings the number of introduced colonies considered
for recovery to 19 and the total number of colonies to 34. However, an
additional introduced colony that was not monitored during 2005, but
for which TDEC maintains an element occurrence record, brings the
number of introduced colonies we consider here to 20 and the total
number of colonies considered for this proposed rulemaking to 35.
In reviewing the 2006 TDEC report summarizing results of the 2005
surveys, we discovered computational errors in the reported estimates
of flowering adults and total individuals based on the number of
flowering stems counted (TDEC 2006, pp. 4-5, Table 2). We reanalyzed
those data to provide revised estimates after consulting with TDEC, but
cite their 2006 report throughout this proposed rule because it is the
source of data for flowering stem counts that were used to estimate
colony sizes. To generate revised estimates of the number of flowering
adults and total individuals, we used the number of flowering stems
reported in Table 2 of TDEC (2006, pp. 4-5). Based on analyses by TDEC
(2006, pp. 3-4) to estimate ratios of flowering stems to numbers of
individual flowering adults and juveniles (discussed in further detail
under number 5 in the Recovery Plan Implementation section below), we
then (1) divided the number of flowering stems by 1.75 to estimate the
number of flowering adults, and (2) multiplied the estimated number of
adults by 14 to estimate the number of juvenile plants. The estimated
total number of individuals is the sum of the number of flowering
adults and number of juvenile plants. The revised estimates of existing
E. tennesseensis populations and colonies, shown in Table 1 below,
include information on whether each colony was natural or introduced.
Summarizing the data in Table 1, natural colonies, or those not known
to have been established through introductions, included 83,895
flowering stems in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 6), which translated to an
estimated 47,941 individual flowering plants and 719,101 total
individuals, including juveniles (i.e., non-flowering plants with
leaves greater than 2 cm (0.78 in) length) and seedlings (i.e., plants
with leaves less than 2 cm (0.78 in)). Introduced colonies, excluding
the two colonies we do not consider as contributing to recovery (as
mentioned above), accounted for 23,454 flowering stems, and an
estimated 13,402 individual flowering plants and 201,178 total
individuals (TDEC 2006, p. 6). Natural colonies constituted
approximately 78 percent of the total individuals, and introduced
colonies constituted approximately 22 percent. In this proposed rule,
we use the colony numbers assigned by TDEC (1996, Appendix I) and have
assigned additional colony numbers sequentially to those colonies that
have been discovered since that report was issued. In some instances,
there are gaps evident in the sequence of colony numbers discussed,
representing colonies that have been documented in the past but that
were either extirpated or of unknown status at the time of this
proposed rule.
Recovery Plan
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. The Act directs that, to the
maximum extent practicable, we incorporate into each plan:
(1) Site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve
the plan's goals for conservation and survival of the species;
(2) Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in
a determination in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List); and
(3) Estimates of the time required and cost to carry out the plan's
goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.
However, revisions to the List (adding, removing, or reclassifying
a species) must reflect determinations made in accordance with sections
4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the
Secretary determine whether a species is endangered or threatened (or
not) because of one or more of five threat factors. Therefore, recovery
criteria must indicate when a species is no longer endangered or
threatened by any of the five factors. In other words, objective,
measurable criteria, or recovery criteria, contained in recovery plans
must indicate when an analysis of the five threat factors under 4(a)(1)
would result in a determination that a species is no longer endangered
or threatened. Section 4(b) requires the determination made under
section 4(a)(1) as to whether a species is endangered or threatened
because of one or more of the five factors be based on the best
available science.
Thus, while recovery plans are intended to provide guidance to the
Service, States, and other partners on methods of eliminating or
ameliorating threats to listed species and on criteria that may be used
to determine when recovery is achieved, recovery plans are not
regulatory documents and cannot substitute for the determinations and
promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1).
Determinations to remove a species from the list made under section
4(a)(1) must be based on the best scientific and commercial data
available at the time of the determination, regardless of whether these
data differ from the recovery plan.
In the course of implementing conservation actions for a species,
new information is often gained that requires recovery efforts to be
modified accordingly. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of
a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being
fully met. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded
while other criteria may not have been accomplished, yet the Service
may judge that, overall, the threats have been minimized sufficiently,
and the species is robust enough, to reclassify the species from
endangered to threatened or perhaps delist the species.
[[Page 48900]]
In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that
were not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These
opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery
plan.
Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing
recovery of the species. Overall, recovery of species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management--planning, implementing, and
evaluating the degree of recovery of a species that may, or may not,
fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
Thus, while the recovery plan provides important guidance on the
direction and strategy for recovery, and indicates when a rulemaking
process may be initiated, the determination to remove a species from
the List is ultimately based on an analysis of whether a species is no
longer endangered or threatened. The following discussion provides a
brief review of recovery planning for Echinacea tennesseensis, as well
as an analysis of the recovery criteria and goals as they relate to
evaluating the status of the species.
The Service first approved the Tennessee Coneflower Recovery Plan
on February 14, 1983 (Service 1983, 41 pp.) and revised it on November
14, 1989 (Service 1989, 30 pp.). The recovery plan includes the
following delisting criterion: Echinacea tennesseensis will be
considered recovered when there are at least five secure wild
populations, each with three self-sustaining colonies of at least a
minimal size. A colony will be considered self-sustaining when there
are two juvenile plants for every flowering one. Minimal size for each
colony is 15 percent cover of flowers over 669 square meters (m\2\; 800
square yards (yd\2\); 7,200 square feet (ft\2\)) of suitable habitat.
Downlisting (reclassification from endangered to threatened) will be
considered when each of the five secure wild populations has two
colonies (Service 1989, p. iii, p. 12).
Establishing multiple populations during the recovery of endangered
species serves two important functions:
(1) Providing redundancy on the landscape to minimize the
probability that localized stochastic disturbances will threaten the
entire species, and
(2) Preserving the genetic structure found within a species by
maintaining the natural distribution of genetic variation among its
populations.
In the case of E. tennesseensis, the need for multiple distinct
populations to maintain genetic structure is diminished, as Baskauf et
al. (1994, p. 186) determined that the majority of genetic variability
within this species is maintained within each population rather than
distributed among them. These data were not available at the time the
recovery plan was completed. With respect to redundancy, the current
number of E. tennesseensis colonies exceeds the total number required
by the recovery plan for delisting this species, and we believe the
current distribution of secured colonies among geographically distinct
populations, which are separated by distances of 1.8 to 9 miles (2.9-
14.5 km), is adequate for minimizing the likelihood that isolated
stochastic disturbances would threaten the continued survival of this
species.
Nonetheless, the criterion set forth in the Recovery Plan for
delisting Echinacea tennesseensis has been met, as described below.
Additionally, the level of protection currently afforded to the species
and its habitat, as well as the current status of threats, are outlined
below in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section.
There currently are six geographically defined Echinacea
tennesseensis populations, including the five described in the recovery
plan (Service 1989, pp. 3-7) and one introduced population at the
Stones River National Battlefield (TDEC 1996, Appendix I). There
currently are 19 colonies of E. tennesseensis that occur entirely or
mostly on protected lands, with 5 of the populations containing three
or more colonies each. The Allvan population is the lone exception, as
only one of its two colonies is secure at this time. The 19 secured
colonies accounted for an estimated 761,055 individual plants in 2005,
or approximately 83 percent of the total species' distribution;
colonies that we do not consider secure accounted for 159,224
individual plants, or approximately 17 percent of the total species'
distribution.
While data on numbers of juvenile plants have not been collected
from all colonies, monitoring data that have been collected for this
demographic attribute have typically exceeded the value used in
defining self-sustaining in the recovery plan-i.e., that there be two
juvenile plants for every flowering adult in a colony. The average of
this ratio in natural colonies for a given year of monitoring has
ranged from 2.5 to 15.6, based on data collected at two to six sites
per year in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2004 (TDEC 2005, p. 21). Ratios of
juvenile to flowering adult plants in introduced colonies were first
estimated during 2006, when the average was found to be 1.08 juveniles
per adult from a single year of data collected at six introduced
colonies (TDEC 2007, p. 5). Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 67) witnessed
considerable variability in mortality rates among stage classes of
Echinacea tennesseensis measured over the periods 1987-1988 and 1988-
1989, which they attributed to interannual variability in rainfall.
They determined that seedlings--plants with a cumulative leaf length
less than 30 cm (11.8 in)--had a high probability (i.e., approximately
50 percent) of dying during drought conditions that they observed in
their first year of study (Drew and Clebsch 1995, p. 66). This
underscores the importance of continuing to monitor numbers of
flowering adult and juvenile plants in a representative sample of both
natural and introduced colonies during the post-delisting monitoring
period.
The recovery plan further requires that each self-sustaining colony
consist of 15 percent cover of flowers over 669 m\2\ (800 yd\2\, 7,200
ft\2\) of suitable habitat, which has not been met in all cases.
However, we have determined that these percent cover and habitat area
requirements do not reflect the best available scientific information.
Drew and Clebsch (1995, pp. 61-67) conducted monitoring during 1987
through 1989 that established baseline conditions for five of the
colonies included in the recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 3-7); in
doing so, they found that percent flower cover of Echinacea
tennesseensis at these sites ranged from 2 to 12 percent, never
exceeding the 15 percent threshold stipulated in the recovery plan.
Total percent cover of all vegetation in the habitats where these
colonies occur ranged from 42 to 59 percent, meaning that E.
tennesseensis would have to have constituted 25 to 40 percent of the
total vegetative cover to have occupied 15 percent flower cover in
these sites. In contrast, E. tennesseensis only constituted between 5
and 22 percent of total vegetative cover in plots studied by Drew and
Clebsch (1995, p. 63). In addition to the fact that the recovery plan
articulated a requirement that was not met by the reference colonies
known to exist when the plan was published, a disadvantage of using
cover estimates for monitoring a rare species such as E. tennesseensis
is that this value can change during the course of a growing season.
Density estimates, on the other hand, remain fairly stable once
seedlings become established following germination (Elzinga et al.
1998, p. 178). We believe that either total counts of plants in
[[Page 48901]]
various life-history classes within a colony of E. tennesseensis (TDEC
2005, pp. 3-4, 16-20), or sampling within a known area to generate
density estimates that can be extrapolated to an entire colony, provide
superior metrics over cover estimates for monitoring trends in
populations.
The recovery plan requirement that each colony occupy 669 m\2\ (800
yd\2\, 7,200 ft\2\) of suitable habitat does not reflect the range of
variability observed in several natural colonies that have been
discovered since the recovery plan was completed. Many of these
colonies are constrained by the small patches of cedar glade habitat
where they occur and provide evidence of a wider range of natural
variability in habitat patch size and colony size in this species that
was not recognized at the time the recovery plan was published. We
believe a better measure of the sustainability of both natural and
introduced colonies is whether they have persisted over time and
remained stable or increased in number. There currently are 31 out of
the total 35 colonies that meet this definition, 19 of which are the
colonies described above as secure.
Recovery Plan Implementation
The current recovery plan identifies six primary actions necessary
for recovering Echinacea tennesseensis:
(1) Continue systematic searches for new colonies;
(2) Secure each colony;
(3) Provide a seed source representative of each natural colony;
(4) Establish new colonies;
(5) Monitor colonies and conduct management activities, if
necessary, to maintain the recovered state in each colony; and
(6) Conduct public education projects.
Each of these recovery actions has been accomplished. The Service
entered into a cooperative agreement with TDEC in 1986, as authorized
by section 6 of the Act, for the conservation of endangered and
threatened plant species, providing a mechanism for TDEC to acquire
Federal funds that have supported much of the work described here. The
State of Tennessee and other partners have provided matching funds in
order to receive funding from the Service under this agreement.
Recovery Action (1): Continue Systematic Searches for New Colonies
Eight colonies of Echinacea tennesseensis were known to exist when
the recovery plan was completed (Service 1989, pp. 3-7). TDEC and its
contractors conducted searches of cedar glades, identified through the
use of aerial photography and topographic maps, during the late 1980s
through 1990 and found five previously unknown colonies of E.
tennesseensis (TDEC 1991, p.1). Two of these colonies were considered
additions to the Vine population (TDEC 1991, p. 2), or population 3 as
described in the recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 4-5). One colony was
considered an addition to the Mt. View population (TDEC 1991, p. 2), or
population 1 of the recovery plan (Service 1989, p. 3). A fourth colony
was considered an addition to the Couchville population (TDEC 1991, p.
3), or population 5 of the recovery plan (Service 1989, p. 7). The
fifth colony was smaller, not in a natural habitat setting, and not
assigned to any of the recovery plan populations in the TDEC report
(1991, p. 2). Other colonies have been discovered during the course of
surveys conducted in the cedar glades of middle Tennessee, and the
number of extant natural colonies now totals 15. A summary of the
currently known populations and their colonies is provided below in
Table 1, and in the discussion concerning recovery action number (5).
Because systematic searches for new colonies have been conducted since
the completion of the recovery plan and led to the discovery of
previously unknown colonies, we consider this recovery action to be
completed.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 48902]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AU10.101
[[Page 48903]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AU10.102
[[Page 48904]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AU10.103
[[Page 48905]]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Recovery Action (2): Secure Each Colony
We have assessed the security of each Echinacea tennesseensis
colony based on observations about threats and defensibility ranks
reported in the 1996 status survey of this species (TDEC 1996, Appendix
I) and information in our files concerning protection actions, such as
construction of fences. We consider a total of 19 colonies, including
14 of the 16 colonies within DSNAs, to be secure. Colonies 2.4 and 2.7,
which lie within portions of the extensive Cedars of Lebanon State
Forest DSNA that have been threatened by past outdoor recreational
vehicle (ORV) use or that are generally degraded cedar glade habitat
are not secure. The State of Tennessee's Natural Area Preservation Act
of 1971 (T.C.A. 11-1701) protects DSNAs from vandalism and forbids
removal of endangered and threatened species from these areas. TDEC
monitors these sites and protects them as needed through construction
of fences or placement of limestone boulders to prevent illegal ORV
access. We do not consider secure the nine colonies that exist only on
private land and are not under some form of management agreement. The
introduced population at the Stones River National Battlefield,
designated a DSNA in 2003, consists of three secured colonies requiring
no protective management, as the National Park Service (NPS) controls
access to the site.
The recovery plan states that Echinacea tennesseensis will be
considered recovered when there are ``at least five secure wild
populations, each with three self-sustaining colonies of at least a
minimal size.'' There are now 19 secure, self-sustaining colonies of E.
tennesseensis distributed among six populations (Table 1), fulfilling
the recovery plan intentions of establishing a sufficient number and
distribution of secure populations and colonies to remove the risk of
extinction for this species within the foreseeable future. Therefore,
we consider this recovery action completed.
Recovery Action (3): Provide a Seed Source Representative of Each
Natural Colony
The Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT), an affiliate institution of
the Centers for Plant Conservation (CPC), collected accessions of seeds
from each of the six populations currently in existence during 1994
(Albrecht 2008a, pers. com.). This collection is maintained according
to CPC guidelines (Albrecht 2008b, pers. com.). Five of the accessions
taken by MOBOT were provided to the National Center for Genetic
Resource Preservation (NCGRP) in Fort Collins, Colorado, for long-term
cold storage. The NCGRP protocol is to test seed viability every 5
years for accession, and MOBOT also tests seed viability on a periodic
basis and collects new material for accessions every 10 to 15 years
(Albrecht 2008b, pers. com.).
While these accessions do not contain seed from every unique
colony, they represent each of the populations of Echinacea
tennesseensis. These accessions provide satisfactory material should
establishment of colonies from reintroductions or additional
introductions become necessary in the future, as Baskauf et al. (1994,
pp.184-186) concluded that there is a low level of genetic
differentiation among populations of E. tennesseensis and the origin of
seeds probably is not a critical concern for establishing new
populations. Therefore, we consider this recovery action completed.
Recovery Action (4): Establish New Colonies
TDEC (2006, pp. 3-6) reported flowering stem counts for 21
introduced colonies, but we have eliminated 2 of these from our
analysis of the current status of Echinacea tennesseensis. One of these
excluded colonies was introduced into a privately owned glade well
outside of the known range of the species in Marshall County, consists
of only a few vegetative stems, and is of doubtful viability. The other
excluded, introduced colony is located in Rutherford County,
approximately 7 miles from the nearest E. tennesseensis population, and
is believed to contain hybrids with E. simulata. The number of
flowering stems reported from the monitored colonies during 2005 ranged
from 1 to 6,183.
All but 1 of the 19 introduced colonies known from 2005 have
greater than 100 flowering stems, and the estimated total number of
plants in these colonies ranged from 866 to 52,997 (TDEC 2006, pp. 4-
5). An additional introduced colony (2.9) that was not surveyed during
2005, but contained thousands of plants in 2006 (Lincicome 2006, pers.
com.), brings the number of extant introduced colonies to 20. These 20
colonies were established at various times since 1970 through the
introductions of seed or transplanted individuals (TDEC 1991, pp. 3-7;
TDEC 1996, Appendix I; Lincicome 2008, pers. com.), often from an
undocumented or mixed origin with respect to the source populations
(Hemmerly 1976, p. 81; Hemmerly 1990, pp. 1-8; TDEC 1991, pp. 4-8;
Clebsch 1993, pp. 8-9). Numerous nurseries have grown E. tennesseensis
for the purpose of providing seeds and plants for establishing new
colonies (TDEC 1991, pp. 3-8). Baskauf et al. (1994, pp. 184-186)
determined that less than 10 percent of the genetic variability of E.
tennesseensis is distributed among populations and concluded from this
low level of differentiation that the origin of seed used in
establishing new populations probably is not a critical consideration.
We summarize the distribution of these introduced colonies among E.
tennesseensis populations in the discussion concerning recovery action
number (5) below. Because 20 new colonies have been established, we
consider this recovery action completed.
Recovery Action (5): Monitor Colonies and Conduct Management
Activities, if Necessary, To Maintain the Recovered State in Each
Colony
Drew and Clebsch (1995, pp. 62-67) conducted the first monitoring
of Echinacea tennesseensis during the summers of 1987 through 1989.
They produced estimates of density, total numbers of E. tennesseensis,
the area occupied in the primary colony of each of the five populations
included in the recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 3-7), and information
on the demographic structure of these populations. TDEC monitored each
of these same E. tennesseensis colonies one or more times in the years
1998, 2000, and 2001, and again in 2004 with some modifications to the
protocol used in the previous 3 years (TDEC 2005, pp. 3-5). TDEC used
monitoring data collected during 2004 (TDEC 2005, pp. 16-21) to
establish that (1) the total number of adult plants in a colony could
be estimated by dividing the number of flowering stems by 1.75, and (2)
the number of juveniles and seedlings combined could be estimated by
multiplying the estimated number of adults by 14. These relationships
were established using only data from natural populations, so they
might not accurately represent ratios among life-history classes in
introduced populations. TDEC (2007, pp. 2-7) reported summary data for
monitoring plots in four introduced colonies that were sampled during
2006, but the data have not been analyzed to establish relationships
for estimating numbers of adults, juveniles, and seedlings from
flowering stem counts. The average ratio of juveniles to flowering
adults estimated from the 2004 monitoring was the highest ever
recorded; however, this ratio provided the best data available for
estimating overall colony sizes in
[[Page 48906]]
combination with flowering stem counts that were conducted in 2005 at
all but one colony (TDEC 2006, pp. 2-5).
Because it is not possible to conduct intensive monitoring of
multiple stage classes of Echinacea tennesseensis at all colonies in a
single year, TDEC and the Service conducted flowering stem censuses of
all known E. tennesseensis colonies in 2005 in order to derive
population estimates using the approach described above. While the
total stem estimates provided by TDEC (2006, pp. 4-5) and Drew and
Clebsch (1995, pp. 62-67) cannot be statistically compared, they
provide a basis for examining long-term persistence and apparent
stability in the sizes of the colonies included in the recovery plan
from observations made 16 years apart.
The Mount View population (number 1 in the recovery plan) consisted
of a single known colony when the recovery plan was completed (Service
1989, p. 3). This population now includes two more colonies, one
introduced, in addition to the original colony 1.1, which is located in
Mount View DSNA. These three colonies are located within an
approximately 2.5 km\2\ (1 mi\2\) area in Davidson County. In 1987,
Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated the size of the population at
colony 1.1 to be 12,000 plants occupying an area of 830 m\2\ (8,934
ft\2\). Based on number of flowering stems reported by TDEC (2006, p.
4) for this colony in 2005, there were an estimated 46,543 plants.
Colony 1.2 was discovered on private land in 1990 (TDEC 1996, Appendix
I, p. III), and Clebsch (1993, p. 18) estimated there were 9,057 plants
occupying an area of 682 m\2\ (7,341 ft\2\) in 1993. The colony on
private land was bulldozed in 1999. Colony 1.2 now consists of plants
introduced onto adjacent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) lands to
provide long-term protection (TDEC 2003, p. 2). TDEC (2006, p. 4)
estimated there were 2,304 plants at colony 1.2 in 2005. TDEC (2006, p.
5) reported 5,109 plants at colony 1.4. This colony was established on
COE lands, near a public use area at J. Percy Priest Reservoir, using
plants grown at Tennessee Tech University and was estimated to have
consisted of 70-80 plants in 1996 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. V). Each
of the colonies in the Mount View population is considered secure, and
the available data indicate they are self-sustaining based on the fact
that they have remained stable or increased over time. While colony 1.2
was reduced in size when the private lands where it occurred were
developed, the colony has increased in size since it was relocated onto
COE lands and a fence was constructed. The total number of plants
estimated in the Mount View population in 2005 was 53,956.
The Vesta population (number 2 in the recovery plan) consisted of
two known colonies when the recovery plan was completed (Service 1989,
pp. 3-4). This population now consists of eight colonies primarily
located within an area of approximately 3 km\2\ (1.5 mi\2\) in Wilson
County. Five of these colonies (2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9) were
introduced. Colony 2.1 occurs primarily in the Vesta Cedar Glade DSNA,
with approximately 15 percent lying outside the DSNA on private lands.
Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated that this colony consisted of
20,900 plants occupying an area of 1,420 m\2\ (15,285 ft\2\) in 1987.
TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a total of 66,771 plants at this colony in
2005. Colonies 2.2 and 2.8 are located entirely within the Vesta Cedar
Glade DSNA in glade openings that are separated by forested habitat;
colony 2.2 was reported in the recovery plan to have consisted of
approximately 5,000 plants occupying an area of approximately 140 m\2\
(1,500 ft\2\), in addition to several small clumps that Hemmerly (1976,
pp. 81) established from seed. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. VII)
estimated this colony occupied an area of 374 m\2\ (4,026 ft\2\) in
1996, and estimated a total of 36,634 plants at this colony in 2005
(TDEC 2006, p. 4). Colony 2.8 is located in a glade opening,
approximately one-tenth of a mile southwest of colony 2.2, and TDEC
(2006, p. 5) estimated a total of 18,369 plants at this colony in 2005.
Colonies 2.3, 2.4, and 2.7 are located in the Cedars of Lebanon State
Forest DSNA. Colony 2.3 was planted in 1983 with seeds produced in a
Tennessee Valley Authority greenhouse from Vesta population stock; in
1996, TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. VIII) observed 50 to 100 plants
occupying an area of approximately 15 m\2\ (161 ft\2\). TDEC (2006, p.
5) estimated a total of 1,191 plants here in 2005. Colony 2.4 consisted
of only 9 plants in 2005, most of which were seedlings (TDEC 2006, p.
5). Colony 2.7 is a small occurrence believed to have been introduced,
but for which no reliable data prior to 2005 exist, at which time the
colony consisted of an estimated 51 plants (TDEC 2006, p. 5). Colony
2.6 was planted at the entrance to Cedars of Lebanon State Park prior
to 1982 and was observed in 1996 to include approximately 100 plants
(TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XI); in 2005 there were an estimated 2,160
plants (TDEC 2006, p. 5). Colony 2.9 was introduced into a powerline
right-of-way on private land adjacent to Cedars of Lebanon State Forest
in 1994 and was brought to TDEC's attention in 2006, at which time
there were thousands of plants (Lincicome 2006, pers. com.). Of the
four secure colonies (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.8) in this population, we
have data to demonstrate that three have remained stable or increased
over time. We do not have historic data for colony 2.8, but the large
number of individuals estimated at this colony in 2005 suggests that it
should be self-sustaining. The total number of plants from the Vesta
population in secured and self-sustaining colonies was estimated to be
122,965 plants in 2005. Colonies that we do not consider secure
accounted for an estimated 2,220 total plants in 2005.
The Vine population (number 3 in the recovery plan) consisted of
three known colonies at the time the recovery plan was completed
(Service 1989, pp. 4-6). This population now consists of 11 colonies
located within an area of approximately 17 km\2\ (7 mi\2\) in Wilson
and Rutherford Counties. Three of these colonies (3.7, 3.8, and 3.9)
were introduced. Approximately two-thirds of the land on which colony
3.1 is located lies within Vine Cedar Glade DSNA, with the remaining
one-third on private land. Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated
that colony 3.1 consisted of 20,200 plants occupying an area of 800
m\2\ (8611 ft\2\) in 1987. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XI-XII) reported
the plants occupied about 760 m\2\ in 1996, and estimated there were
64,757 plants in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 4). Most of colony 3.2 is located
in a site acquired by TDEC using a Recovery Land Acquisition Grant and
matching State funds for addition to the State's natural areas system
and was estimated in the recovery plan to contain as many as 50,000
plants (Service 1989, p. 5). Data are summarized here for four element
occurrences that TDEC tracks and which make up this colony. TDEC (1996,
Appendix I, p. XIII) estimated a total of 94,537 plants at this colony
in 1996, occupying an area of 5,889 m\2\ (63,389 ft\2\); in 2005 there
were an estimated 222,480 plants (TDEC 2006, p. 4). The portions of the
colony that lie entirely or mostly within the protected lands contained
an estimated 213,548 of these plants. Colony 3.3 is located in a
privately owned site that was highly disturbed and consisted of 90
plants in 1996 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XIV). This colony contained
an estimated 94 individuals in 2004, and remains a small colony of
questionable viability today (TDEC 2006, p. 4) because it occurs in
highly disturbed habitat. Colony 3.4 is located in the Gattinger
[[Page 48907]]
Glade and Barrens DSNA, which is owned by the developers of the
Nashville Super Speedway who donated a conservation easement to the
State of Tennessee. Clebsch (1993, p. 18) estimated there were 71,576
plants at colony 3.4 in 1993. TDEC estimated this colony occupied an
area of 2,723 m\2\ (23,310 ft\2\) in 1996 and estimated a total of
111,249 plants at this colony in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 4). While damage
from off-road vehicle (ORV) use has been historically observed at this
colony in the past (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XV), it has not been
noted since the site became a DSNA, and we consider it secure. Colonies
3.3 through 3.7 occur on private land. Clebsch (1993, p. 18) estimated
a total of 15,769 plants at colony 3.5 in 1993, occupying an estimated
area of 669 m\2\ (7,201 ft\2\). TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XVI)
observed that the density of plants had decreased at this colony in
1996, while the plants occupied a larger area--an estimated 1,483 m\2\
(15,963 ft\2\). TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a total of 21,677 plants at
this colony in 2005. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XVII) observed about 50
plants in a 1 m\2\ (11 ft\2\) area at colony 3.6 in 1996, but by 2005
the colony contained an estimated 1,346 plants. Colony 3.7 was
established from seeds planted in 1978 and 1979 on private property
owned by a native plant enthusiast. While many plants were killed
during drought conditions in 1980, TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XVIII)
reported that there were approximately 250 plants at this colony in
1985 and between 300 and 500 plants in 1996. TDEC (2006, p. 4)
estimated a total of 14,614 plants at this colony in 2005. Colonies 3.8
and 3.9 were established from seeds planted into two sites at Cedars of
Lebanon State Forest in 1990 and 1991. In 1996, TDEC (1996, Appendix I,
p. XIX) counted 452 plants by surveying eight glades/barrens within the
larger complex where colony 3.8 is located. TDEC (2006, p. 5) estimated
a total of 15,969 plants at colony 3.8 in 2005. TDEC (1996, Appendix I,
p. XX) observed approximately 200 to 300 plants occupying an estimated
area of 51 m\2\ (549 ft\2\) at colony 3.9 in 1996; in 2005, they
estimated 23,520 total plants at this colony (TDEC 2006, p. 5). We have
no data prior to 2005 for colonies 3.10 and 3.11, both of which are
located on private land. In 2005, TDEC (2006, p. 5) estimated a total
of 46,063 plants at colony 3.10, which is located near the Nashville
Super Speedway; colony 3.11 contained an estimated 16,586 plants. These
data provide evidence that the four secure colonies (i.e., 3.1, 3.2,
3.4, and 3.9) in this population have remained stable or increased over
time. The total number of plants from the Vine population in secured
and self-sustaining colonies was estimated to be 413,074 total plants
in 2005. Colonies that we do not consider secure accounted for an
estimated 125,281 total plants in 2005.
The Allvan population (number 4 in the recovery plan) consisted of
one known colony (4.1) at the time the recovery plan was completed; two
other colonies had been extirpated from this population (Service 1989,
p. 6). This population now consists of two introduced colonies on
public lands, as colony 4.1 has been lost to disturbance. Drew and
Clebsch (1995, pp. 62-64) estimated a total of 3,700 plants at colony
4.1 in 1987, occupying an estimated area of 470 m\2\ (5,059 ft \2\),
and noted the vegetation at this site differed from the other colonies
probably as a result of human disturbance. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p.
XXI) noted the poor condition of Echinacea tennesseensis plants during
a site visit to colony 4.1 in 1996, and observed no plants at this
colony in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 4). Colonies 4.2 and 4.3 were established
from seeds and cultivated juveniles planted on COE lands at J. Percy
Priest Reservoir in the years 1989 through 1991 (TDEC 1991, pp. 5-6),
and earthen berms have been constructed at both sites to deter ORV
traffic and reduce visibility of these colonies. In 1996, colony 4.2
contained many robust adult plants, but few seedlings and non-flowering
adults, in an area of 32 m\2\ (344 ft\2\) (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p.
XXII). In 2005, TDEC estimated a total of 52,997 plants at this site.
This secure colony is located in the Elsie Quarterman Cedar Glade DSNA,
on COE lands at J. Percy Priest Reservoir, and appears to be self-
sustaining based on the increases observed over time. Colony 4.3 is
located near the COE Hurricane Public Access Area. In 1996, this colony
consisted of many robust adult plants and abundant juveniles in an area
of about 68 m\2\ (732 ft\2\) (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXIII). In
2005, TDEC (2006, p. 5) estimated a total of 3,300 plants at this
colony. We believe this colony is self-sustaining; however, it is
vulnerable to impacts from illegal ORV access as noted above. The total
number of plants in the one secured and self-sustaining colony in the
Allvan population contained an estimated 52,997 plants in 2005. The
colony that we do not consider secure accounted for an estimated 3,300
total plants in 2005.
The Couchville population (number 5 in the recovery plan) consisted
of a single known colony spanning approximately eight privately owned
tracts when the recovery plan was completed (Service 1989, p. 7). This
population now consists of three natural and five introduced colonies,
all located within an approximately 2.8 km\2\ (1.1 mi\2\) area of
Davidson and Rutherford Counties on lands owned by the State of
Tennessee (except for colony 5.2, which is on private land). Drew and
Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated a total of 89,300 plants at colony 5.1
in 1987, occupying an estimated area of 13,860 m\2\ (149,189 ft\2\).
TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a total of 63,026 plants at this site in
2005. Colony 5.2 is divided between two privately owned properties. The
plants in this colony are found in habitats of varying quality, having
been subjected to past disturbance in some places, and in 1993,
vegetative plants were observed occupying an area of approximately
1,823 m\2\ (19,623 ft\2\) (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXV). TDEC (2006,
p. 4) estimated a total of 3,360 plants at this colony in 2005.
Colonies 5.3 through 5.6 were established from seed and juveniles
planted at Long Hunter State Park during 1989 through 1991. TDEC (1996,
Appendix I, p. XXVI) observed 428 plants at colony 5.3 in 1996, and
noted that they were spread out over a wide area; in 2005, TDEC (2006,
p. 4) estimated a total of 13,774 plants at this colony. TDEC (1996,
Appendix I, p. XXVII) observed that a thriving population containing
thousands of individuals had become established at colony 5.4 by 1996,
and that the plants north of the road dividing this colony occupied an
area of 2,153 m\2\ (23,175 ft\2\); in 2005, TDEC (2006, p. 5) estimated
a total of 7,397 and 8,460 plants were on the north and south sides of
the road, respectively. Colony 5.5 consisted of less than 200 total
plants occupying an estimated area of 53 m\2\ (570 ft\2\) in 1996 (TDEC
1996, Appendix I, pp. XXVIII-XXIX); in 2005, there were an estimated
11,143 plants (TDEC 2006, p. 4). Colony 5.6 consisted of approximately
2,000 plants occupying an area of 51 m\2\ (549 ft\2\) in 1996 (TDEC
1996, Appendix I, pp. XXIX-XXX); in 2005, there were an estimated 7,251
plants (TDEC 2006, p. 5). Colony 5.7, for which no historic monitoring
data are available, is the only naturally occurring colony at Long
Hunter State Park. TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated that a total of 146
plants were found here in 2005. Colony 5.8 was established in 2000 at
the Fate Sanders Barrens DSNA, located on COE lands at J. Percy Priest
Reservoir. This colony is located approximately 3.5 km (2.8 mi)
southeast of colony 5.3 in the Couchville population. TDEC planted
[[Page 48908]]
199 plants into two areas at this site in 2000 (Lincicome 2008, pers.
com.) and estimated a total of 866 plants at this colony in 2005 (TDEC
2006, p. 5). The data above demonstrate that the secure colonies (5.1,
5.4, 5.6, and 5.8) in the Couchville population are self-sustaining
based on stable or increasing numbers over time. In addition, although
the number of plants in colony 5.1 decreased between 1987 and 2005, we
conclude that colony 5.1 is secured and self-sustaining for the
foreseeable future due to the large number of individuals at this site
persisting over a 20-year period. The total number of plants from the
Couchville population in secured and self-sustaining colonies was
estimated to be 87,000 total plants in 2005. Colonies that we do not
consider secure accounted for an estimated 28,423 total plants in 2005.
The Stones River National Battlefield population (i.e., population
6, not included in the recovery plan) consists of three colonies
established through introductions into an area that is now a DSNA.
Colony 6.1 was established from seeds introduced by Hemmerly in 1970
(1976, pp. 10, 81), as part of investigations into seedling survival
under field conditions. This colony consists of two groupings of
plants, one of which consisted of 3,880 plants and the other 28 plants
in 1995; the colony occupied an area of 39 m\2\ (420 ft\2\) in 1996
(TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXXI). TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a total
of 21,729 plants at this colony in 2005. Colonies 6.2 and 6.3 are
thought to have been established by a neighbor of the battlefield in
the mid-1990s (Hogan 2008, pers. com.) and consisted of 134 and 401
plants, respectively, in 1995 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXXII). In
2005, TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated that there were 2,031 plants at
colony 6.2 and 7,303 plants at colony 6.3. The total number of plants
estimated in the Stones River National Battlefield population in 2005
was 31,063 total plants, all in secured and self-sustaining colonies.
Numerous partners are involved in managing Echinacea tennesseensis
populations on their lands. TDEC compared management options at the
Vesta Cedar Glade DSNA, including mowing, discing, burning, and
application of selective herbicides for removal of grasses (Clebsch
1993, pp. 2-8). TDEC and TNC have used grazing of goats, mechanical
removal, and herbicide applications to control woody species
encroachment on the margins of cedar glade openings at Mount View Glade
DSNA (TDEC 2003, pp. 4-9). TDEC applies prescribed fire or mechanical
removal, as needed and within constraints imposed by locations within
the urban interface, to control woody species, including the invasive
exotic privet (Ligustrum sp.), at many DSNAs where E. tennesseensis
occurs; these include Mount View Glade, Vesta Cedar Glade, Vine Cedar
Glade, Cedars of Lebanon State Forest Natural Area, Gattinger's Cedar
Glade and Barrens, Elsie Quarterman Cedar Glade, Fate Sanders Barrens,
and Couchville Cedar Glade and Barrens. TDEC works with the Tennessee
Division of Forestry (TDF) to ensure that colonies in the Cedars of
Lebanon State Forest, which includes three DSNAs, receive necessary
management and collaborates with TDF to implement all prescribed burns
that are conducted on DSNAs. TDEC also has cooperated with COE on
construction of fences or earthen berms around sites at J. Percy Priest
Reservoir that have been threatened by urban encroachment and illegal
ORV use. The NPS monitors the introduced population at the Stones River
National Battlefield and controls woody plant encroachment and
vegetation succession in the glade openings where the colonies occur,
as necessary.
Because TDEC and other entities have monitored Echinacea
tennesseensis populations many times since the time of listing and have
managed colonies on protected lands to minimize threats from vegetation
succession and ORV use, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable
future, we consider this recovery action completed.
Recovery Action (6): Conduct Public Education Projects
Echinacea tennesseensis was featured in newspaper (Paine 2002, p.
6B) and magazine (Simpson and Somers 1990, pp. 14-16; Campbell 1992, p.
32; Daerr 1999, p. 50) articles to educate the general public about the
species, the cedar glade ecosystem it occupies, and the conservation
efforts directed towards them. The Service published ``An Educator's
Guide to the Threatened and Endangered Species and Ecosystems of
Tennessee,'' which includes instructional materials about the cedar
glades of middle Tennessee and two federally listed plant species found
in the glades, E. tennesseensis and Astragalus bibullatus (Pyne's
ground-plum) (Service no date, pp. 50-53). TDEC personnel periodically
lead guided wildflower walks in the cedar glades DSNAs and educate the
public about E. tennesseensis and other Federal and State listed plant
species during those walks. In 2000, TDEC published 10,000 copies of an
educational poster featuring Tennessee's rare plants, including E.
tennesseensis. Because numerous public education projects have been
conducted, we consider this recovery action completed.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. ``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species
or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the ``species'' is determined we then
evaluate whether that species may be endangered or threatened because
of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. For species that are already listed as endangered or threatened,
the analysis of threats must include an evaluation of both the threats
currently facing the species, and the threats that are reasonably
likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the
delisting or downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's
protections.
We must consider these same five factors in reclassifying or
delisting a species. We may delist a species according to 50 CFR
424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate
that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following
reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered and
is no longer endangered or threatened (as is the case for Echinacea
tennesseensis); and/or (3) the original scientific data used at the
time the species were classified were in error.
A species is ``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a ``significant portion of its range'' and is
``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. The word ``range'' is used here to refer to the range in which
the species currently exists, and the word ``significant'' refers to
the value of that portion of the range being considered to the
conservation of the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future.'' However,
in a January 16, 2009, memorandum addressed to the Acting Director of
the Service from the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the
Interior, concluded, `` * * * as used in the [Act], Congress intended
the term `foreseeable future' to describe the extent to which the
Secretary can reasonably rely on
[[Page 48909]]
predictions about the future in making determinations about the future
conservation status of the species'' (U.S. Department of the Interior
2009). ``Foreseeable future'' is determined by the Service on a case-
by-case basis, taking into consideration a variety of species-specific
factors such as lifespan, genetics, mating systems, demography, threat
projection timeframes, and environmental variability.
In considering the foreseeable future as it relates to the status
of Echinacea tennesseensis, we defined the ``foreseeable future'' to be
the extent to which, given the amount and substance of available data,
events, or effects can and should be anticipated, or the threats
reasonably extrapolated. We considered the historical data to identify
any relevant existing threats acting on the species, ongoing
conservation efforts, data on species abundance and persistence at
individual sites since the time of listing, identifiable informational
gaps and uncertainties regarding residual and emerging threats to the
species, as well as population status and trends, its life history, and
then looked to see if reliable predictions about the status of the
species in response to those factors could be drawn. We considered the
historical data to identify any relevant existing trends that might
allow for reliable prediction of the future (in the form of
extrapolating the trends). We also considered whether we could reliably
predict any future events (not yet acting on the species and,
therefore, not yet manifested in a trend) that might affect the status
of the species, recognizing that our ability to make reliable
predictions into the future is limited by the variable quantity and
quality of available data.
Following a rangewide threats analysis we evaluate whether
Echinacea tennesseensis is threatened or endangered in any significant
portion(s) of its range.
Factor A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The final rule to list Echinacea tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR
32604; June 6, 1979) identified the following habitat threats: habitat
loss due to residential and recreational development and succession of
cedar glade communities in which the species occurred.
Losses of cedar glade habitat and colonies of Echinacea
tennesseensis to residential development have posed a significant
threat to E. tennesseensis. At the time of listing, one population of
E. tennesseensis had been reduced in size due to housing construction
and another was destroyed during the construction of a trailer park.
The three extant occurrences at that time were all located on private
lands, one of which was imminently threatened by surrounding
residential development. This Davidson County occurrence has since been
protected as a DSNA. Approximately two-thirds of the Wilson County
occurrence that was on public lands is now a DSNA, and one-third
remains on private lands. The Rutherford County occurrence was located
in a gravel parking lot of a commercial property and has been
destroyed. Since the time of listing, protection of natural colonies on
publicly owned conservation lands and establishment of additional
colonies through introductions have effectively diminished the threat
residential development once posed to the survival of E. tennesseensis.
The final listing rule for Echinacea tennesseensis described
recreational development as a threat facing the Davidson County (i.e.,
Mount View) population, but did not address the specific nature of the
recreational development. The Mount View, Allvan, and Couchville
populations occur in close proximity to J. Percy Priest Reservoir,
construction of which was completed in 1967. It is possible that
development of recreational facilities following completion of the
reservoir presented a threat to E. tennesseensis or cedar glade
habitats. However, four of the secure and self-sustaining colonies
(i.e., colonies 1.2, 1.4, 4.2, and 5.8) are located within the now-
protected lands buffering the reservoir, three of which were designated
as Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the J. Percy Priest 2007 Master
Plan Update (Corps 2007, pp. 3-1 to 4-3). Therefore, recreational
development no longer poses a threat to the survival of E.
tennesseensis.
There are now 27 colonies, distributed among the six populations of
Echinacea tennesseensis, which occur entirely or primarily on
conservation lands in either State or Federal ownership. The lone
exception to public ownership of these conservation lands is the
Gattinger Glade DSNA, which is managed by TDEC but privately owned and
protected under a conservation easement. We consider 19 of these
colonies to be secure and self-sustaining. Sixteen colonies, all but
two of which are secure, are located entirely or primarily within DSNAs
that were designated at various times between 1974 and 2009. TDEC
manages most of these DSNAs, in some cases cooperatively with TDF, for
the purpose of conserving E. tennesseensis and the cedar glades and
barrens ecosystem on which it depends. All but one of these DSNAs lie
within or adjacent to State or Federal conservation lands that provide
complementary conservation benefits by maintaining functioning
ecosystems within which these colonies occur and harboring additional
protected colonies of E. tennesseensis.
Providing a large, protected cedar glade and forest ecosystem
connected to the Vesta Cedar Glade, Vine Cedar Glade, and Cedars of
Lebanon State Forest DSNAs, the non-DSNA lands in the Cedars of Lebanon
State Forest also contain three colonies. An additional colony is
located at the Cedars of Lebanon State Park, which is adjacent to the
Cedars of Lebanon State Forest. Long Hunter State Park contains six
colonies and provides a functioning ecosystem buffer to the Couchville
Cedar Glade and Barrens DSNA. COE lands at J. Percy Priest Reservoir
provide habitat for three colonies in addition to the colonies in the
Elsie Quarterman Cedar Glade and Fate Sanders Barrens DSNAs that lie
within these lands. The Gattinger Cedar Glade is the only DSNA on
private land that contains a colony of Echinacea tennesseensis. While
this property is not buffered by other public lands, it lies within a
large tract of land owned by the Nashville Super Speedway, which has
been a partner in the conservation of E. tennesseensis. The three
colonies at Stones River National Battlefield are included among the 16
within DSNAs, and lie within a protected buffer provided by NPS lands.
Given the statutory nature of the DSNA designation and TDEC's
demonstrated commitment to protecting lands maintaining the quality of
habitats in the DSNAs, we find that the colonies located in DSNAs or in
acquired lands that will be added to Tennessee's natural area system
will receive adequate long-term protection and necessary management to
control vegetation succession and disturbance from human activities.
Although colonies 2.4 and 2.7 contain an estimated 9 and 51
individuals, respectively, are threatened by ORV use, and lack long-
term protection and management, impacts to these two colonies will not
have a significant effect on the status of the species, as they
represent less than one percent of the Vesta population. Delisting
Echinacea tennesseensis is not likely to weaken TDEC's commitment to
the conservation of these DSNAs, several of which harbor one or more
federally listed plant species other than E. tennesseensis.
We have identified five colonies on public lands outside of DSNAs
that we consider secure and that contribute to
[[Page 48910]]
the improved status of this plant (i.e., colonies 1.2, 1.4, 3.9, 5.4,
and 5.6). These colonies are described under Recovery Action (5) in the
Recovery Plan Implementation section, above.
However, illegal ORV activity remains a threat to this species at
three colonies on public lands (colonies 2.4, 2.7, and 4.3), which we
have not counted among the 19 secure, self-sustaining colonies. TDEC
has worked to reduce this threat in several DSNAs by constructing
barbed wire fences and limestone barriers. The COE has also extended
efforts in the form of constructing fences and/or earthen berms near
three colonies on lands at J. Percy Priest Reservoir to reduce this
threat. Damage from ORV activity was noted by TDEC (1996, Appendix I)
at only one of the 9 colonies located exclusively on private lands that
are not under recovery protection agreements, none of which were
counted among the 19 secure, self-sustaining colonies in this rule.
While illegal ORV use remains a potential threat in certain colonies of
Echinacea tennesseensis (TDEC 1996, p. 21 and Appendix I), we do not
have data to suggest that such activity is occurring at a magnitude to
cause E. tennesseensis to meet the definition of either an endangered
or a threatened species throughout its range.
The threat of habitat loss or modification in the form of ORV
activity has been observed at a total of four colonies. Three of the
colonies (colonies 2.4, 2.7, and 4.3) are located on public land, and
the fourth colony is located on private land (TDEC 1996, Appendix I).
Recovery protection agreements are lacking at nine colonies that exist
solely on private lands, leaving them vulnerable to habitat
disturbance. However, we believe that Echinacea tennesseensis is
neither endangered nor threatened as a result of habitat loss or
modification because there are 19 secure and self-sustaining colonies
distributed among six geographically defined populations. TDEC
coordinates management of these colonies to reduce threats to E.
tennesseensis and its habitat in cooperation with other partners.
Examples of these management activities were provided under Recovery
Action (5) in the Recovery Plan Implementation section, above.
Summary of Factor A: Although ORV activity has the potential to
negatively affect the habitat of four Echinacea tennesseensis colonies,
we consider this to be a low-level threat and we do not have any
information to indicate that this is currently, or likely to be, a
significant threat that would cause E. tennesseensis to meet the
definition of either an endangered or a threatened species. We expect
that the lands containing the 19 secure and self-sustaining colonies,
which accounted for approximately 83 percent of the total individuals
estimated to exist in 2005, will remain permanently protected and that
they will be managed to maintain cedar glade habitat. We anticipate
that these conditions will remain essentially the same in the
foreseeable future due to the adequate regulatory mechanisms in place
to protect suitable habitat for E. tennesseensis in the majority of its
range (see discussion under Factor D--Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms, below). In conclusion, we find that the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range is no longer a threat to the species throughout its range, both
now and in the foreseeable future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The final rule to list Echinacea tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR
32604; June 6, 1979) identified collection for commercial and
recreational purposes as a threat to the species. Limited digging,
presumably for horticultural purposes, has been historically observed
at five colonies of E. tennesseensis, three (colonies 5.3, 5.5, and
5.6) of which are located in high visibility areas within Long Hunter
State Park (TDEC 1996, p. 21). We do not consider these three colonies,
or a fourth (colony 3.5) located on private land, to be secure for the
purposes of this proposed rule. However, we do consider the fifth
colony, colony 4.2, to be secure because it became a DSNA in 1998, and
no evidence of digging at this site has been recorded since 1996.
Echinacea tennesseensis that originated from natural populations,
but is now grown from seed or vegetative propagules produced in
nurseries, is available for commerce from one nursery and for sale by
multiple nurseries only within the State of Tennessee. Thus, a Service
interstate permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act is not required.
TDEC regulates commerce of plants listed as endangered by the State of
Tennessee through issuance of State permits for this purpose, as
authorized by the Tennessee Rare Plant Protection Act of 1985 (T.C.A.
11-26-201). There are also at least two cultivars of E. tennesseensis,
which are of hybrid origin, now available for interstate commerce and
easily found on the internet. As hybrids, the prohibitions on
interstate commerce under section 9 of the Act do not apply to these
cultivars, so a Service interstate permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of
the Act is not required. The prohibitions in the Tennessee Rare Plant
Protection Act also do not apply to cultivars.
Native Americans have long used genus Echinacea for medicinal
purposes and it is commercially available as a popular homeopathic
supplement. However, E. tennesseensis is not included in the primary
species used in commercial medicinal applications and studied for their
medicinal properties (Senchina et al. 2006, p. 1). We are not aware of
collections of this species being taken for this purpose and do not
believe this poses a threat to this species currently or into the
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor B: Echinacea tennesseensis and hybrids displaying
the attractive traits of the species are readily available
commercially. Collection or intentional killing of specimens has been
observed in the past at only five colonies, one of which we counted as
secure in our analysis for this proposed delisting rule because this
colony became a DSNA in 1998, and no evidence of digging at this site
has been recorded since 1996.
In addition, E. tennesseensis is not among the primary species of
Echinacea used for medicinal applications. In conclusion, we find that
overutilization for commercial, recreational (i.e., gardening),
scientific, or educational purposes is no longer a threat to E.
tennesseensis throughout its range, both now and for the foreseeable
future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The June 6, 1979, listing rule for Echinacea tennesseensis (44 FR
32604) stated that light grazing occurred at colony 3.2 but
acknowledged that the degree of threat, if any, posed by this grazing
was uncertain. A robust population of E. tennesseensis remains at this
site today, much of which TDEC acquired for addition to Tennessee's
natural area system. Deer browse has been identified as a potential
threat at the three colonies in Stones River National Battlefield (TDEC
1996, Appendix I, pp. XXXI-XXXIII) and at colony 5.5 (TDEC 2007, p. 5).
However, we have no data to suggest that such browsing threatens these
colonies, which have persisted since being established by introductions
10 or more years ago.
Summary of Factor C: Although grazing or deer browse do affect
Echinacea tennesseensis, we have no data to suggest that either grazing
or deer browse are a threat to any colonies of E. tennesseensis or that
they will become a threat now or within the foreseeable future. In
conclusion, we
[[Page 48911]]
find that neither disease nor predation is a threat to E. tennesseensis
throughout its range, both now and for the foreseeable future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
When Echinacea tennesseensis was listed, the State of Tennessee had
no laws protecting rare plants. Therefore, the final rule to list E.
tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR 32604; June 6, 1979) identified the
lack of State protections as a threat to the species. Echinacea
tennesseensis is now listed as endangered by the State of Tennessee and
is protected under the Tennessee Rare Plant Protection Act of 1985
(T.C.A. 11-26-201), which forbids persons from knowingly uprooting,
digging, taking, removing, damaging, destroying, possessing, or
otherwise disturbing for any purpose, any endangered species from
private or public lands without the written permission of the
landowner. While this statute does not forbid the destruction of E.
tennesseensis or its habitat, neither does the Act afford such
protection to listed plants. Furthermore, those colonies located in
DSNAs are afforded additional protection by the State of Tennessee's
Natural Area Preservation Act of 1971 (T.C.A. 11-1701), which forbids
removal of State endangered and threatened species from DSNAs but also
protects these areas from vandalism.
While it is possible that the State of Tennessee could determine
that Echinacea tennesseensis should be removed from their State
endangered plant list if the species is removed from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Plants, we believe that the DSNA protected
status of the lands where the 19 secure, self-sustaining colonies
currently exist will continue to provide adequate regulatory protection
for those colonies in the foreseeable future, including protection from
threats due to habitat destruction and modification.
Summary of Factor D: We do not have any information to indicate
that the existing regulatory mechanisms in absence of the Act's
protection would be inadequate to address the remaining, low-level
threats to the species from habitat destruction or modification (see
Factor A discussion above). Therefore, we find that lack of regulatory
protection is no longer a threat to E. tennesseensis. In conclusion, we
find that the currently existing regulatory mechanisms described above
are adequate, and they will remain adequate to protect E. tennesseensis
and its habitat in the majority of its range now and within the
foreseeable future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
As discussed under the Factor A section above, the June 6, 1979,
listing rule for Echinacea tennesseensis (44 FR 32604) identified
vegetation succession as a threat to the species and the cedar glades
it depends on for its survival. A status survey for the species,
completed in 1996 (TDEC 1996, p. 22), did not address this threat in
its analysis of factors affecting the survival of the species, but it
did recommend controlling vegetation succession at some sites in the
survey's appendix containing population and site status reports. TDEC
has developed a program for managing vegetation succession and other
threats to cedar glades on DSNAs inhabited by E. tennesseensis and two
other federally listed species, and continues to work cooperatively
with TDF, Tennessee State Parks, and COE to manage potential threats in
habitats where colonies exist on properties belonging to these
agencies. Further, we are not aware of any colonies of E. tennesseensis
that have been lost to vegetation succession.
The TDEC (1996, p. 2) identified low levels of genetic variability
in Echinacea tennesseensis as a threat but did not report any
deleterious effects of diminished genetic variability, such as
inbreeding depression, that would indicate this factor poses a threat
to this species. Baskauf et al. (1994, p. 186) documented low levels of
genetic variability in E. tennesseensis, but also observed that this
species is not devoid of genetic variability and is evidently well
adapted to its cedar glade habitat. They noted that given the
relatively large sizes of many of the naturally occurring populations,
random genetic drift should not erode genetic variability in E.
tennesseensis very rapidly. They suggested that dramatic population
fluctuations or extinction and colonization events could have occurred
historically and eroded genetic variability (Baskauf et al. 1994, p.
186). However, it is possible that this species might never have
possessed high levels of genetic variability (Walck et al. 2002, p.
62).
Reduction of genetic diversity could pose a threat to viability of
the introduced colonies, as they could be subject to losses in genetic
variability that result from establishing colonies from a subset of the
total genetic structure found in the species (i.e., the founder effect)
(Allendorf and Luikart 2007, p. 129). We have no information concerning
the genetic structure of introduced colonies compared to naturally
occurring ones, but this could be a factor to investigate if introduced
colonies are found to be less stable than natural colonies through
future monitoring. At this time, however, we do not believe that low
genetic variability threatens the continued existence of E.
tennesseensis now or within the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. 30).
Numerous long-term changes have been observed including changes in
arctic temperatures and ice; widespread changes in precipitation
amounts, ocean salinity, and wind patterns; and occurrences of extreme
weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the
intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2007b, p. 7). Based on scenarios
that do not assume explicit climate policies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, global average temperature is projected to rise by 2-11.5
[deg]F by the end of this century (relative to the 1980-1999 time
period) (Karl et al. 2009, p. 24). Species that are dependent on
specialized habitat types, limited in distribution, or the extreme
periphery of their range will be most susceptible to the impacts of
climate change. Such species could currently be found at high
elevations, at extreme northern/southern latitudes, dependent on
delicate ecological interactions, or sensitive to nonnative
competitors. While continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate
of change is unknown in many cases.
As stated above, Echinacea tennesseensis is only found in limestone
barrens and cedar glades habitats of the Central Basin, Interior Low
Plateau Physiographic Province, in Davidson, Rutherford, and Wilson
Counties in Tennessee. Within this ecosystem, E. tennesseensis inhabits
both xeric (dry) communities, where there is no soil or soil depth less
than 5 cm (2 in.), and subxeric (moderately dry) communities on soils
deeper than 5 cm (2 in.).
Estimates of the effects of climate change using available climate
models lack the geographic precision needed to predict the magnitude of
effects at a scale small enough to discretely apply to the range of
Echinacea tennesseensis. However, data on recent trends and predicted
changes for the Southeast United States (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 111-116)
provide some insight for evaluating the potential threat of climate
change to E. tennesseensis. Since 1970, the average annual temperature
of the region has increased by about 2 [deg]F, with
[[Page 48912]]
the greatest increases occurring during winter months. The geographic
extent of areas in the Southeast region affected by moderate to severe
spring and summer drought has increased over the past three decades by
12 and 14 percent, respectively (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). These
trends are expected to increase.
Rates of warming are predicted to more than double in comparison to
what the Southeast has experienced since 1975, with the greatest
increases projected for summer months. Depending on the emissions
scenario used for modeling change, average temperatures are expected to
increase by 4.5 [deg]F to 9 [deg]F by the 2080s (Karl et al. 2009, pp.
111). While there is considerable variability in rainfall predictions
throughout the region, increases in evaporation of moisture from soils
and loss of water by plants in response to warmer temperatures are
expected to contribute to increased frequency, duration, and intensity
of droughts (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 112).
Despite the observations of Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 66) that
seedlings had an approximately 50-percent probability of dying during
the drought conditions that occurred during their first year of study,
we believe there is biological and historical evidence to suggest that
Echinacea tennesseensis is well-adapted to endure predicted effects of
climate change. First, Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 66) found that stage-
specific mortality rates during the drought conditions of their first
year of study for non-reproductive E. tennesseensis plants with a
cumulative leaf length greater than 30 cm (12 in) (i.e., non-seedling,
vegetative plants) and plants that were reproductively active ranged
from 17 to 31 percent, considerably lower than rates observed in
seedlings. Second, Hemmerly (1976, p. 12) found that mature plants
possessed several roots averaging 38.4 cm (15.1 in.) in length and
extending an average depth of 23.1 cm (9.1 in.) into the soil, often
branching horizontally after reaching an impenetrable rock layer. These
observations suggest that while seedlings face higher risks of
mortality in drought conditions, this species possesses biological
characteristics that increase drought resistance in later life-history
stages. That non-seedling life stages of E. tennesseensis are more
resilient to drought than seedlings is supported by Drew and Clebsch's
(1995, p. 67) observation of demographic patterns in flowering
individuals. During 1988, 41 percent of the plants that had flowered
during 1987 failed to do so, presumably influenced by drought. However,
68 percent of the plants that failed to flower during 1988 produced
flowers during 1989, when annual rainfall levels increased. This
ability to vary flower production in relation to annual rainfall
levels, combined with its apparently long-lived habit (individual
plants live up to at least 6 years, but the maximum lifespan is
probably much longer (Baskauf 1993, p. 37)), should enable E.
tennesseensis to remain viable through periods of drought.
Studies examining the influence of genetic, ecological, and
physiological factors on the distribution of Echinacea tennesseensis
have not found sufficient differences between this species and more
widespread congeners (other species belonging to the genus Echinacea)
to explain its endemism in the cedar glades of middle Tennessee based
on these factors alone (Baskin et al. 1997, p. 385; Baskauf and
Eickmeier 1994, p. 963; Snyder et al. 1994, p. 64). Rather, it has been
suggested that historical and ecological factors contributed to the
evolution of this species and its subsequent restriction to cedar glade
habitats in middle Tennessee (Baskin et al. 1997, p. 385). Baskin et
al. (1997, pp. 390-391) suggested that an ancestral form of E.
tennesseensis migrated to and became established in middle Tennessee
during the Hypsithermal Interval (i.e., the period of greatest post-
glacial warming, ca. 8,000 to 5,000 years before present), and that as
temperatures became cooler, the only members of this ancestral taxon
that survived were those growing in the cedar glades of the region--
i.e., the plants that eventually gave rise to E. tennesseensis.
While predictions of increased drought frequency, intensity, and
duration suggest that seedling survival could be a limiting factor for
Echinacea tennesseensis, the species possesses other biological traits
(i.e., long life span, interannual reproductive variability) to provide
resilience to this threat. Further, predicted climate changes for the
Southeast United States could, similar to what is believed to have
taken place during the Hypsithermal Interval (Delcourt et al. 1986, p.
135), lead to an expansion of openings within forested areas of middle
Tennessee, potentially increasing the area occupied by cedar glade
communities. This presumably would increase the amount of suitable
habitat available for E. tennesseensis. Based on these factors and the
fact that we have no evidence that climate changes observed to date
have had any adverse impact on E. tennesseensis or its habitat, we do
not believe that climate change is a threat to E. tennesseensis now or
within the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E: Because (1) Management activities take place
to prevent the loss of 19 secure Echinacea tennesseensis colonies; (2)
31 colonies are considered self-sustaining, as measured by persistence
and demographic stability over time (despite low levels of genetic
variation within the species), and 19 of these 31 colonies are
considered secure; (3) there is biological and historical evidence to
suggest that E. tennesseensis is well-adapted to endure predicted
effects of climate change; and (4) we have no evidence that climate
changes observed to date have had any adverse impact on E.
tennesseensis or its habitat, we find that the other natural or manmade
factors considered here are no longer a threat to E. tennesseensis and
are not likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available and have determined that Echinacea tennesseensis is no longer
endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. We must next
determine if the threats to E. tennesseensis are non-uniformly
distributed such that populations in one portion of its range
experience higher level of threats than populations in other portions
of its range. When considering the listing status of the species, the
first step in the analysis is to determine whether the species is in
danger of extinction or likely to become endangered throughout all of
its range. For instance, if the threats on a species are acting only on
a portion of its range, but the effects of the threats are such that
they place the entire species in danger of extinction or likely to
become endangered, we would list the entire species.
Significant Portion of the Range
Data indicate that numbers of Echinacea tennesseensis and
protections for its habitat have significantly increased since it was
listed under the Act. As identified above, only ORV use, illegal or
otherwise, potentially poses a known threat to E. tennesseensis. While
disturbance from ORV use has been observed in the past and remains
unaddressed at 4 colonies on publicly and privately owned lands
harboring E. tennesseensis (i.e., colonies 2.4, 2.7, 4.3 and 1
privately owned colony), these 4 colonies accounted for only 2 percent
of the species' total distribution in 2005. Most of the largest
colonies are located in DSNAs and are protected from this
[[Page 48913]]
threat by fences or other barriers that TDEC has constructed and
maintained. At the time the 1989 recovery plan was written, there were
five extant populations ranging in size from approximately 3,700 to
89,000 plants and consisting of one to three colonies each (Clebsch
1988, p. 14; Service 1989, p. 2). There were an estimated total of
146,000 individual plants in 1989 (Drew and Clebsch 1995, p. 62).
Recovery efforts have secured habitat for 19 colonies that are self-
sustaining and distributed among six geographically defined
populations. These 19 secured, self-sustaining colonies accounted for
an estimated 761,055 individual plants in 2005, or approximately 83
percent of the total species' distribution; colonies that we do not
consider secure accounted for 159,224 individual plants, or
approximately 17 percent of the total species' distribution. Therefore,
while there is potential for ORV use to impact certain colonies, should
that threat materialize, it is not a significant impact to the species
as a whole. The number of secured plants and colonies is adequate to
ensure that Factor A is no longer a threat to the species overall.
Thus, destruction and modification of habitat from ORV use is not a
threat to the species throughout all or a significant portion of its
range now or into the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, major threats to Echinacea tennesseensis have been
reduced, managed, or eliminated. Although the potential threats to E.
tennesseensis habitat are fairly uniform throughout the range of the
species, they are more pronounced on privately owned lands where the
species occurs. However, we do not consider threats to these unsecured
colonies to affect a significant portion of the range of this species.
Therefore, we have determined that none of the existing or potential
threats, either alone or in combination with others, warrant listing E.
tennesseensis as endangered in any significant portion of its range or
that these threats are likely to cause E. tennesseensis to become
endangered within the foreseeable future in any significant portion of
its range.
On the basis of this evaluation, we believe E. tennesseensis no
longer requires the protection of the Act, and we propose to remove E.
tennesseensis throughout its range from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)).
Effects of This Proposed Rule
This rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove Echinacea tennesseensis
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. This rule
would not affect 50 CFR 17.95 because critical habitat was never
designated for this species.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
plants. The prohibitions under section 9(a)(2) of the Act 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, remove and reduce Echinacea tennesseensis to
possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig
up, or damage or destroy E. tennesseensis on any other area in knowing
violation of any State law or regulation such as a trespass law.
Section 7 of the Act requires that Federal agencies consult with us to
ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is
not likely to jeopardize the species' continued existence. If this
proposed rule is finalized, it would revise 50 CFR 17.12 to remove
(delist) E. tennesseensis from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants, and these prohibitions would no longer apply.
Delisting E. tennesseensis is expected to have positive effects in
terms of increasing management flexibility by State and Federal
governments.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior,
through the Service, to implement a system, in cooperation with the
States, to monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all species
that are delisted due to recovery. Post-delisting monitoring refers to
activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to recovery
remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the
Act no longer apply. The primary goal of post-delisting monitoring is
to monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate,
and if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so
that proposing to list it as endangered or threatened is not again
needed. If at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that
protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate
listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing. At
the conclusion of the monitoring period, we will review all available
information to determine if relisting, the continuation of monitoring,
or the termination of monitoring is appropriate.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires cooperation with the
States in development and implementation of post-delisting monitoring
programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g)
and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of post-
delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of other
entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species'
conservation after delisting. In August 2008, TDEC agreed to be a
cooperator in the post-delisting monitoring of Echinacea tennesseensis.
We have prepared our Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for
Tennessee Purple Coneflower (Echinacea tennesseensis) (Plan) (Service
2009). The draft plan:
(1) Summarizes the species' status at the time of delisting;
(2) Defines thresholds or triggers for potential monitoring
outcomes and conclusions;
(3) Lays out frequency and duration of monitoring;
(4) Articulates monitoring methods, including sampling
considerations;
(5) Outlines data compilation and reporting procedures and
responsibilities; and
(6) Proposes a post-delisting monitoring implementation schedule,
including timing and responsible parties.
Colonies of Echinacea tennesseensis selected for post-delisting
monitoring are indicated with an asterisk in Table 1 of this proposed
rule and in the draft plan.
Concurrent with this proposed delisting rule, we announce the draft
plan's availability for public review. The draft post-delisting
monitoring plan can be viewed in its entirety at: http: //www.fws.gov/
cookeville/. Copies can also be obtained from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Cookeville Field Office, Tennessee (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section). We seek information, data, and comments
from the public regarding Echinacea tennesseensis and the post-
delisting monitoring strategy. We are also seeking peer review of this
draft plan concurrently with the proposed rule comment period. We
anticipate finalizing this plan, considering all public and peer review
comments, prior to making a final determination on the proposed
delisting rule.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the OMB's Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December 16, 2004, we will solicit the
expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding the science in this proposed
[[Page 48914]]
rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring plan. The purpose of such
review is to ensure that we base our decisions on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send peer reviewers copies of
this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring plan
immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will
invite peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on
the specific assumptions and conclusions in this proposed delisting and
draft post-delisting monitoring plan. We will summarize the opinions of
these reviewers in the final decision documents, and we will consider
their input and any additional information we receive as part of our
process of making a final decision on this proposal and the draft post-
delisting monitoring plan. Such communication may lead to a final
decision that differs from this proposal.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that Federal
agencies obtain approval from OMB before collecting information from
the public. The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection
of information as the obtaining of information by or for an agency by
means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting,
recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 or more
persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or more
persons'' refers to the persons to whom a collection of information is
addressed by the agency within any 12-month period. For purposes of
this definition, employees of the Federal government are not included.
The draft post-delisting monitoring plan does not contain any new
collections of information that require approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. It will not impose recordkeeping or reporting
requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement, as defined in the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in
connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of 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, and the Department
of 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. We have determined that
there are no tribal lands affected by this proposal.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available upon request from
the Cookeville Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section).
Author
The primary author of this document is Geoff Call, Cookeville Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
2. Amend Sec. 17.12 (h) by removing the entry for ``Echinacea
tennesseensis'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants.
Dated: July 29, 2010.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19742 Filed 8-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P