48896 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules

recommends that you include your second comment period on this Notice eliminated or significantly reduced, name and other contact information in of Intent to Delete. Any parties adequate regulatory mechanisms exist, the body of your comment and with any interested in commenting must do so at and populations are stable. We also disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA this time. announce the availability of the draft cannot read your comment due to For additional information see the post-delisting monitoring plan. This technical difficulties and cannot contact Direct Final Notice of Deletion located proposed rule completes the 5-year you for clarification, EPA may not be in the ‘‘Rules’’ section of this Federal status review for the species, initiated able to consider your comment. Register. on September 21, 2007. Electronic files should avoid the use of List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 DATES: To ensure that we are able to special characters, any form of consider your comments on this encryption and be free of any defects or Environmental protection, Air proposed rule, they must be received or viruses. pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous postmarked on or before October 12, Docket: All documents in the docket waste, Hazardous substances, 2010. We must receive requests for are listed in the http:// Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, public hearings, in writing, at the www.regulations.gov index. Although Reporting and recordkeeping address shown in the FOR FURTHER listed in the index, some information is requirements, Superfund, Water INFORMATION CONTACT section, by not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other pollution control, Water supply. September 27, 2010. information whose disclosure is Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments restricted by statute. Certain other 9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, by one of the following methods: material, such as copyrighted material, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// will be publicly available only in hard 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. www.regulations.gov. Search for docket copy. Publicly available docket Dated: August 4, 2010. number FWS–R4–ES–2010–0059 and materials are available either Lawrence E. Starfield, then follow the instructions for electronically at http:// Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region submitting comments. www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 6. • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, [FR Doc. 2010–19925 Filed 8–11–10; 8:45 am] Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R4– Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ES–2010–0059; Division of Policy and (214) 665–7362, by appointment only Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 12 Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; or DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. Jacksonville City Hall, 1 Municipal We will not accept comments by e- Drive, Jacksonville, AR 72076, (501) Fish and Wildlife Service mail or fax. We will post all comments 982–3181, Monday through Friday, 8 on http://www.regulations.gov. This a.m. to 5 p.m. ; Arkansas Department of 50 CFR Part 17 generally means that we will post any Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 5301 personal information you provide us Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0059; (see the Public Comments section below 92220–1113–0000–C6] Arkansas 72118, (501) 682–0744, for more information). Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 RIN 1018–AW26 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: p.m. Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville Shawn Ghose M.S., P.E., Remedial and Plants; Removing the Tennessee Field Office, 446 Neal Street, Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Purple Coneflower From the Federal Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone (931) Region 6 (6SF–RA), 1445 Ross Avenue, List of Endangered and Threatened 528–6481. Individuals who are hearing- Dallas, TX 75202–2733, Plants impaired or speech-impaired may call [email protected] 665–6782 or 800– AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Information Relay Service at 533–3508. Interior. (800) 877–8339 for TTY assistance 24 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of hours a day, 7 days a week. ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ Section of draft post-delisting monitoring plan. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: today’s Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Public Comments Deletion of the Rogers Road Municipal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as We intend that any final action Landfill Superfund because we view amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and resulting from this proposed rule will be this as a noncontroversial revision and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to based on the best scientific and anticipate no adverse comment. We remove the plant Echinacea commercial data available and be as have explained our reasons for this tennesseensis (Tennessee purple accurate and effective as possible. deletion in the preamble to the direct coneflower) from the Federal List of Therefore, we request comments or final Notice of Deletion, and those Endangered and Threatened Plants due information from other concerned reasons are incorporated herein. If we to recovery. This action is based on a government agencies, the scientific receive no adverse comment(s) on this thorough review of the best available community, industry, or other deletion action, we will not take further scientific and commercial data, which interested parties concerning this action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. indicate that this species’ status has proposed rule. The comments that will If we receive adverse comment(s), we improved to the point that E. be most useful and likely to influence will withdraw the direct final Notice of tennesseensis is not likely to become our decisions are those that are Deletion, and it will not take effect. We endangered within the foreseeable supported by data or peer-reviewed will, as appropriate, address all public future throughout all or a significant studies and those that include citations comments in a subsequent final Notice portion of its range. Our review of the to, and analyses of, applicable laws and of Deletion based on this Notice of status of this species shows that all of regulations. Please make your comments Intent to Delete. We will not institute a the threats to the species have been as specific as possible and explain the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 48897

basis for them. In addition, please identifying information—will be posted Previous Federal Actions include sufficient information with your on the Web site. Please note that Section 12 of the Act directed the comments to allow us to authenticate comments posted to this Web site are Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution any scientific or commercial data you not immediately viewable. When you to prepare a report on those plants reference or provide. In particular, we submit a comment, the system receives considered to be endangered, seek comments concerning the it immediately. However, the comment threatened, or extinct. On July 1, 1975, following: will not be publicly viewable until we the Service published a notice in the (1) Biological data concerning post it, which might not occur until Federal Register (40 FR 27873) Echinacea tennesseensis. several days after submission. accepting the Smithsonian report as a (2) Relevant data concerning any If you mail or hand-deliver a petition to list taxa named therein under threats (or lack thereof) to Echinacea hardcopy comment that includes section 4(c)(2) [now 4(b)(3)] of the Act tennesseensis, including but not limited personal identifying information, you and announcing our intention to review to: may request at the top of your document the status of those plants. Echinacea (a) Whether or not climate change is that we withhold this information from tennesseensis was included in that a threat to the species; public review. However, we cannot report (40 FR 27880). Tennessee purple (b) What regional climate change guarantee that we will be able to do so. coneflower is the common name for E. models are available, and whether they To ensure that the electronic docket for tennesseensis; however, we will are reliable and credible to use as step- this rulemaking is complete and all primarily use the scientific name of this down models for assessing the effect of comments we receive are publicly species throughout this proposed rule to climate change on the species and its available, we will post all hardcopy clarify taxonomic issues or the legal habitat; and submissions on http:// status of the plant. (c) The extent of Federal and State www.regulations.gov. protection and management that would In addition, comments and materials On June 16, 1976, we published a be provided to Echinacea tennesseensis we receive, as well as supporting proposed rule in the Federal Register as a delisted species. documentation used in preparing this (41 FR 24524) to designate (3) Additional information concerning proposed rule will be available for approximately 1,700 vascular plant the range, distribution, population size, public inspection in two ways: species, including Echinacea and trends of Echinacea tennesseensis, (1) You can view them on http:// tennesseensis, as endangered under including the locations of any www.regulations.gov. In the Enter section 4 of the Act. On June 6, 1979, additional populations of this species. Keyword or ID box, enter FWS–R4–ES– we published a final rule in the Federal (4) Current or planned activities 2010–0059, which is the docket number Register (44 FR 32604) designating E. within the geographic range of for this rulemaking. tennesseensis as endangered. The final Echinacea tennesseensis colonies that (2) You can make an appointment, rule identified the following threats to may impact or benefit the species. during normal business hours, to view E. tennesseensis: loss of habitat due to (5) The draft post-delisting monitoring the comments and materials in person at residential and recreational plan. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ development; collection of the species Please note that submissions merely Cookeville Field Office (see FOR for commercial or recreational purposes; stating support for or opposition to the FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). grazing; no State law protecting rare action under consideration without plants in Tennessee; and succession of providing supporting information, Public Availability of Comments cedar glade communities in which E. although noted, will not be considered Before including your address, phone tennesseensis occurred. On February 14, in making a determination, as section number, e-mail address, or other 1983, we published the Tennessee 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species personal identifying information in your Coneflower Recovery Plan (Service Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. comment, you should be aware that 1983, 41 pp.), a revision of which we 1531 et seq.) directs that a your entire comment—including your published on November 14, 1989 determination as to whether any species personal identifying information—may (Service 1989, 30 pp.). On September is an endangered or threatened species be made publicly available at any time. 21, 2007, we initiated a 5-year status must be made ‘‘solely on the basis of the While you can ask us in your comment review of this species (72 FR 54057). best scientific and commercial data to withhold your personal identifying This rule, once finalized, will complete available.’’ information from public review, we the status review. Prior to issuing a final rule on this cannot guarantee that we will be able to For additional details on previous proposed action, we will take into do so. Federal actions, see discussion under consideration all comments and any the Recovery Plan and Recovery Plan additional information we receive. Such Public Hearing Implementation sections below. information may lead to a final rule that Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides differs from this proposal. All comments for one or more public hearings on this Species Information and recommendations, including names proposal, if requested. We must receive A member of the sunflower family and addresses, will become part of the requests for public hearings, in writing, (Asteraceae), Echinacea tennesseensis is administrative record. at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER a perennial herb with a long and You may submit your comments and INFORMATION CONTACT section by the fusiform (i.e., thickened toward the materials concerning this proposed rule date shown in the DATES section of this middle and tapered towards either end), by one of the methods listed in the document. We will schedule public blackened root. In late summer, the ADDRESSES section. We will not hearings on this proposal, if any are species bears showy purple flower consider comments sent by e-mail or fax requested, and announce the dates, heads on one-to-many hairy branches. or to an address not listed in the times, and places of those hearings, as Linear to lance-shaped leaves up to 20 ADDRESSES section. If you submit a well as how to obtain reasonable centimeters (cm; 8 inches (in.)) long and comment via http:// accommodations, in the Federal 1.5 cm (0.6 in.) wide arise from the base www.regulations.gov, your entire Register at least 15 days before the first of E. tennesseensis and are beset with comment—including any personal hearing. coarse hairs, especially along the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 48898 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules

margins. The ray flowers (i.e., petals synonym of their E. tennesseensis support plant communities dominated surrounding the darker purple flowers (Beadle) Binns, B. R. Baum, & Arnason, by eastern red cedar (Juniperus of the central disc) are pink to purple comb. nov. (Binns et al. 2002, p. 629). virginiana) and other woody species. and spread horizontally or arch slightly However, this has not been Somers et al. (1986, p. 191) found E. forward from the disc to a length of 2– unanimously accepted among plant tennesseensis in four of the community 4 cm (0.8–1.8 in.). taxonomists (Estes 2008, pers. com.; types they classified, but could not The following description of this Weakley 2008, pp. 139–140). Kim et al. determine the fidelity of the species to species’ life history is summarized from (2004) examined the genetic diversity of a particular community type because it Hemmerly (1986, pp. 193–195): seeds Echinacea species and their results only occurred on three of the glades are shed from plants during fall and conflicted with the division of the genus they studied and was infrequently winter and begin germinating in early by Binns et al. (2002, pp. 617–632) into encountered in plots within those sites. March of the following year, producing two subgenera, Echinacea and Pallida, The communities where E. numerous seedlings by late March. Most one of which—Echinacea—included tennesseensis occurred spanned two of the seedling growth occurs during the only E. purpurea. Mechanda et al. xeric and two subxeric types. The xeric first 6 or 7 weeks of the first year, during (2004, p. 481) concluded that their community types, named for the which plants will grow to a height of up analysis of genetic diversity within dominant species that either alone or to 2–3 cm (0.8–1.2 in). Plants remain in Echinacea only supported recognition combined constituted greater than 50 a rosette stage and root length increases of one of the five varieties of E. pallida percent cover, were the (1) Nostoc rapidly during these weeks. Flowering that Binns et al. (2002, pp. 626–629) commune (blue-green algae)– stems and seeds are produced on some described, namely E. pallida var. Sporobolus vaginiflorus (poverty plants by the end of the second season. tennesseensis. While Mechanda et al. dropseed) and (2) Dalea gattingeri Individuals of Echinacea tennesseensis (2004, p. 481) would also reduce E. (purpletassels) communities. The can live up to at least 6 years, but the tennesseensis from specific to varietal subxeric types were the (1) S. maximum lifespan is probably much status, the conflicting results between vaginiflorus and (2) Pleurochaete longer (Baskauf 1993, p. 37). these two investigations point to a lack squarrosa (square pleurochaete moss) Echinacea tennesseensis was first of consensus regarding the appropriate communities. Mean soil depths across collected in 1878 in Rutherford County, taxonomic rank of taxa within the genus these communities ranged from 4.1 to Tennessee, by Dr. A. Gattinger and later Echinacea. Because clear acceptance of 7.7 cm (1.6 to 3.0 in.) (Somers et al. described by Beadle (1898, p. 359) as the taxonomic revision by Binns et al. 1986, pp. 186–188). Brauneria tennesseensis on the basis of (2002, pp. 610–632) is lacking, and Echinacea tennesseensis was only specimens collected by H. Eggert in Flora of North America (http:// ‘‘ ’’ known from three locations, one each in 1897 from a dry, gravelly hill near the www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_ town of LaVergne. Fernald (1900, pp. Davidson, Rutherford, and Wilson id=1&taxon_id=250066491, accessed 86–87) did not accept Beadle’s Counties, when the species was listed as December 3, 2009) and a flora under identification of B. tennesseensis as a endangered in 1979 (44 FR 32604; June development by Weakley (2008, pp. distinct species, instead he merged it 6, 1979). In 1989, when the species’ 139–140) both retain specific status for with the more widespread E. recovery plan was completed, there E. tennesseensis, we will continue to angustifolia. This treatment was upheld were five extant populations ranging in recognize E. tennesseensis as a species by many taxonomists until McGregor size from approximately 3,700 to 89,000 during this rulemaking process until a (1968, pp. 139–141) classified the taxon plants and consisting of one to three change in the best available scientific as E. tennesseensis (Beadle) Small, colonies each (Clebsch 1988, p. 14; data indicates we should do otherwise. based on examination of materials from Service 1989, p. 2). The recovery plan collections discussed above and from Echinacea tennesseensis is restricted defined a population as a group of collections by R. McVaugh in 1936. As to limestone barrens and cedar glades of colonies in which the probability of McGregor (1968, p. 141) was unable to the Central Basin, Interior Low Plateau gene exchange through cross pollination locate any plants while conducting Physiographic Province, in Davidson, is high, and a colony was defined as all searches during the months of June Rutherford, and Wilson Counties in E. tennesseensis plants found at a single through August, 1959–1961, he Tennessee (Tennessee Department of site that are separated from other plants concluded that the species was very rare Environment and Conservation (TDEC) within the population by unsuitable or possibly extinct in his monograph of 2006, p. 2). These middle Tennessee habitat (Service 1989, p. 1). While the genus Echinacea. The species went habitats typically occur on thin plates of analysis of genetic variability within E. unnoticed until its rediscovery in a Lebanon limestone that are more or less tennesseensis did not reveal high levels cedar glade in Davidson County, horizontally bedded, though interrupted of differentiation among these Tennessee as reported by Baskin et al. by vertical fissures in which sinkholes populations (Baskauf et al. 1994, p. (1968, p. 70), and subsequently in may be readily formed (Quarterman 186), recovery efforts have been Wilson County, Tennessee by 1986, p. 124). Somers et al. (1986, pp. implemented and tracked with respect Quarterman and Hemmerly (1971, pp. 180–189) described seven plant to these geographically defined 304–305), who also noted that the area community types from their study of 10 populations. The geographic believed to be the type locality cedar glades in middle Tennessee. They distribution of these populations and (Rutherford County) for the species was divided those communities into xeric their colonies was updated in a TDEC destroyed by the construction of a trailer (dry) communities, which occurred in (1996, Appendix I) status survey to park. locations with no soil or soil depth less include all known colonies at that time, More recently, Binns et al. (2002, pp. than 5 cm (2 in.), and subxeric including those from a sixth population 610–632) revised the taxonomy of the (moderately dry) communities that introduced into glades at the Stones genus Echinacea and in doing so occurred on soils deeper than 5 cm (2 River National Battlefield in Rutherford reduced E. tennesseensis to one of five in.) (Somers et al. 1986, p. 186). County. For the purposes of this varieties of E. pallida. Their taxonomic Quarterman (1986, p. 124) noted that proposed rule, we have followed these treatment considers E. pallida var. soil depths greater than 20 cm (8 in.) in population delineations and have tennesseensis (Beadle) Small to be a the vicinity of cedar glades tend to assigned most colonies that have been

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 48899

discovered since the status survey was stems to numbers of individual (2) Objective, measurable criteria completed to the geographically closest flowering adults and juveniles which, when met, would result in a population. (discussed in further detail under determination in accordance with the The six Echinacea tennesseensis number 5 in the Recovery Plan provisions of section 4 of the Act, that populations occur within an Implementation section below), we then the species be removed from the Federal approximately 400 square kilometer (1) divided the number of flowering List of Endangered and Threatened (km2; 154 square miles (mi2)) area and stems by 1.75 to estimate the number of Wildlife and Plants (List); and include between 2 and 11 colonies each. flowering adults, and (2) multiplied the (3) Estimates of the time required and Surveys conducted by TDEC and the estimated number of adults by 14 to cost to carry out the plan’s goal and to Service in 2005 confirmed the presence estimate the number of juvenile plants. achieve intermediate steps toward that of E. tennesseensis at 36 colonies, and The estimated total number of goal. the number of flowering stems in each individuals is the sum of the number of However, revisions to the List was counted (TDEC 2006, pp. 4–5). flowering adults and number of juvenile (adding, removing, or reclassifying a Fifteen of these are natural colonies; the plants. The revised estimates of existing species) must reflect determinations remaining 21 have been established E. tennesseensis populations and made in accordance with sections through introductions for the purpose of colonies, shown in Table 1 below, 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section recovering E. tennesseensis (TDEC 1991, include information on whether each 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary pp. 3–7; TDEC 1996, Appendix I; colony was natural or introduced. determine whether a species is Lincicome 2008, pers. com.). Three of Summarizing the data in Table 1, endangered or threatened (or not) the 21 introduced colonies constitute natural colonies, or those not known to because of one or more of five threat the sixth population that was have been established through factors. Therefore, recovery criteria must established at a Designated State Natural introductions, included 83,895 indicate when a species is no longer Area (DSNA) in the Stones River flowering stems in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. endangered or threatened by any of the National Battlefield (TDEC 1996, 6), which translated to an estimated five factors. In other words, objective, Appendix I). 47,941 individual flowering plants and measurable criteria, or recovery criteria, We do not consider 2 of the 21 719,101 total individuals, including contained in recovery plans must introduced colonies as contributing to juveniles (i.e., non-flowering plants indicate when an analysis of the five recovery and do not include them in our with leaves greater than 2 cm (0.78 in) threat factors under 4(a)(1) would result analysis of the current status of E. length) and seedlings (i.e., plants with in a determination that a species is no tennesseensis. One of these two leaves less than 2 cm (0.78 in)). longer endangered or threatened. excluded colonies is located in Marshall Introduced colonies, excluding the two Section 4(b) requires the determination County, well outside of the known range colonies we do not consider as made under section 4(a)(1) as to of the species. The other excluded contributing to recovery (as mentioned whether a species is endangered or colony is located in Rutherford County, above), accounted for 23,454 flowering threatened because of one or more of the and is believed to contain hybrids with stems, and an estimated 13,402 five factors be based on the best E. simulata (see the Recovery Plan individual flowering plants and 201,178 available science. Implementation section below for total individuals (TDEC 2006, p. 6). Thus, while recovery plans are additional information). Excluding these Natural colonies constituted intended to provide guidance to the 2 colonies brings the number of approximately 78 percent of the total Service, States, and other partners on introduced colonies considered for individuals, and introduced colonies methods of eliminating or ameliorating recovery to 19 and the total number of constituted approximately 22 percent. threats to listed species and on criteria colonies to 34. However, an additional In this proposed rule, we use the colony that may be used to determine when introduced colony that was not numbers assigned by TDEC (1996, recovery is achieved, recovery plans are monitored during 2005, but for which Appendix I) and have assigned not regulatory documents and cannot TDEC maintains an element occurrence additional colony numbers sequentially substitute for the determinations and record, brings the number of introduced to those colonies that have been promulgation of regulations required colonies we consider here to 20 and the discovered since that report was issued. under section 4(a)(1). Determinations to total number of colonies considered for In some instances, there are gaps remove a species from the list made this proposed rulemaking to 35. evident in the sequence of colony under section 4(a)(1) must be based on In reviewing the 2006 TDEC report numbers discussed, representing the best scientific and commercial data summarizing results of the 2005 colonies that have been documented in available at the time of the surveys, we discovered computational the past but that were either extirpated determination, regardless of whether errors in the reported estimates of or of unknown status at the time of this these data differ from the recovery plan. flowering adults and total individuals proposed rule. In the course of implementing based on the number of flowering stems conservation actions for a species, new counted (TDEC 2006, pp. 4–5, Table 2). Recovery Plan information is often gained that requires We reanalyzed those data to provide Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to recovery efforts to be modified revised estimates after consulting with develop and implement recovery plans accordingly. There are many paths to TDEC, but cite their 2006 report for the conservation and survival of accomplishing recovery of a species, throughout this proposed rule because it endangered and threatened species and recovery may be achieved without is the source of data for flowering stem unless we determine that such a plan all criteria being fully met. For example, counts that were used to estimate will not promote the conservation of the one or more criteria may have been colony sizes. To generate revised species. The Act directs that, to the exceeded while other criteria may not estimates of the number of flowering maximum extent practicable, we have been accomplished, yet the Service adults and total individuals, we used incorporate into each plan: may judge that, overall, the threats have the number of flowering stems reported (1) Site-specific management actions been minimized sufficiently, and the in Table 2 of TDEC (2006, pp. 4–5). as may be necessary to achieve the species is robust enough, to reclassify Based on analyses by TDEC (2006, pp. plan’s goals for conservation and the species from endangered to 3–4) to estimate ratios of flowering survival of the species; threatened or perhaps delist the species.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 48900 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules

In other cases, recovery opportunities In the case of E. tennesseensis, the during 2006, when the average was may have been recognized that were not need for multiple distinct populations found to be 1.08 juveniles per adult known at the time the recovery plan was to maintain genetic structure is from a single year of data collected at finalized. These opportunities may be diminished, as Baskauf et al. (1994, p. six introduced colonies (TDEC 2007, p. used instead of methods identified in 186) determined that the majority of 5). Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 67) the recovery plan. genetic variability within this species is witnessed considerable variability in Likewise, information on the species maintained within each population mortality rates among stage classes of may be learned that was not known at rather than distributed among them. Echinacea tennesseensis measured over the time the recovery plan was These data were not available at the the periods 1987–1988 and 1988–1989, finalized. The new information may time the recovery plan was completed. which they attributed to interannual change the extent that criteria need to be With respect to redundancy, the current variability in rainfall. They determined met for recognizing recovery of the number of E. tennesseensis colonies that seedlings—plants with a species. Overall, recovery of species is exceeds the total number required by cumulative leaf length less than 30 cm a dynamic process requiring adaptive the recovery plan for delisting this (11.8 in)—had a high probability (i.e., management—planning, implementing, species, and we believe the current approximately 50 percent) of dying and evaluating the degree of recovery of distribution of secured colonies among during drought conditions that they a species that may, or may not, fully geographically distinct populations, observed in their first year of study follow the guidance provided in a which are separated by distances of 1.8 (Drew and Clebsch 1995, p. 66). This recovery plan. to 9 miles (2.9–14.5 km), is adequate for underscores the importance of Thus, while the recovery plan minimizing the likelihood that isolated continuing to monitor numbers of provides important guidance on the stochastic disturbances would threaten flowering adult and juvenile plants in a direction and strategy for recovery, and the continued survival of this species. representative sample of both natural indicates when a rulemaking process Nonetheless, the criterion set forth in and introduced colonies during the may be initiated, the determination to the Recovery Plan for delisting post-delisting monitoring period. Echinacea tennesseensis has been met, remove a species from the List is The recovery plan further requires as described below. Additionally, the ultimately based on an analysis of that each self-sustaining colony consist level of protection currently afforded to whether a species is no longer of 15 percent cover of flowers over 669 the species and its habitat, as well as the endangered or threatened. The m2 2 2 current status of threats, are outlined (800 yd , 7,200 ft ) of suitable following discussion provides a brief habitat, which has not been met in all review of recovery planning for below in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section. cases. However, we have determined Echinacea tennesseensis, as well as an There currently are six geographically that these percent cover and habitat area analysis of the recovery criteria and defined Echinacea tennesseensis requirements do not reflect the best goals as they relate to evaluating the populations, including the five available scientific information. Drew status of the species. described in the recovery plan (Service and Clebsch (1995, pp. 61–67) The Service first approved the 1989, pp. 3–7) and one introduced conducted monitoring during 1987 Tennessee Coneflower Recovery Plan on population at the Stones River National through 1989 that established baseline February 14, 1983 (Service 1983, 41 pp.) Battlefield (TDEC 1996, Appendix I). conditions for five of the colonies and revised it on November 14, 1989 There currently are 19 colonies of E. included in the recovery plan (Service (Service 1989, 30 pp.). The recovery tennesseensis that occur entirely or 1989, pp. 3–7); in doing so, they found plan includes the following delisting mostly on protected lands, with 5 of the that percent flower cover of Echinacea criterion: Echinacea tennesseensis will populations containing three or more tennesseensis at these sites ranged from be considered recovered when there are colonies each. The Allvan population is 2 to 12 percent, never exceeding the 15 at least five secure wild populations, the lone exception, as only one of its percent threshold stipulated in the each with three self-sustaining colonies two colonies is secure at this time. The recovery plan. Total percent cover of all of at least a minimal size. A colony will 19 secured colonies accounted for an vegetation in the habitats where these be considered self-sustaining when estimated 761,055 individual plants in colonies occur ranged from 42 to 59 there are two juvenile plants for every 2005, or approximately 83 percent of the percent, meaning that E. tennesseensis flowering one. Minimal size for each total species’ distribution; colonies that would have to have constituted 25 to 40 colony is 15 percent cover of flowers we do not consider secure accounted for percent of the total vegetative cover to over 669 square meters (m2; 800 square 159,224 individual plants, or have occupied 15 percent flower cover yards (yd2); 7,200 square feet (ft2)) of approximately 17 percent of the total in these sites. In contrast, E. suitable habitat. Downlisting species’ distribution. tennesseensis only constituted between (reclassification from endangered to While data on numbers of juvenile 5 and 22 percent of total vegetative threatened) will be considered when plants have not been collected from all cover in plots studied by Drew and each of the five secure wild populations colonies, monitoring data that have been Clebsch (1995, p. 63). In addition to the has two colonies (Service 1989, p. iii, p. collected for this demographic attribute fact that the recovery plan articulated a 12). have typically exceeded the value used requirement that was not met by the Establishing multiple populations in defining self-sustaining in the reference colonies known to exist when during the recovery of endangered recovery plan–i.e., that there be two the plan was published, a disadvantage species serves two important functions: juvenile plants for every flowering adult of using cover estimates for monitoring (1) Providing redundancy on the in a colony. The average of this ratio in a rare species such as E. tennesseensis landscape to minimize the probability natural colonies for a given year of is that this value can change during the that localized stochastic disturbances monitoring has ranged from 2.5 to 15.6, course of a growing season. Density will threaten the entire species, and based on data collected at two to six estimates, on the other hand, remain (2) Preserving the genetic structure sites per year in 1998, 2000, 2001, and fairly stable once seedlings become found within a species by maintaining 2004 (TDEC 2005, p. 21). Ratios of established following germination the natural distribution of genetic juvenile to flowering adult plants in (Elzinga et al. 1998, p. 178). We believe variation among its populations. introduced colonies were first estimated that either total counts of plants in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 48901

various life-history classes within a (1) Continue systematic searches for unknown colonies of E. tennesseensis colony of E. tennesseensis (TDEC 2005, new colonies; (TDEC 1991, p.1). Two of these colonies pp. 3–4, 16–20), or sampling within a (2) Secure each colony; were considered additions to the Vine known area to generate density (3) Provide a seed source population (TDEC 1991, p. 2), or estimates that can be extrapolated to an representative of each natural colony; population 3 as described in the entire colony, provide superior metrics (4) Establish new colonies; recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 4–5). (5) Monitor colonies and conduct over cover estimates for monitoring One colony was considered an addition management activities, if necessary, to trends in populations. to the Mt. View population (TDEC 1991, The recovery plan requirement that maintain the recovered state in each p. 2), or population 1 of the recovery each colony occupy 669 m2 (800 yd2, colony; and plan (Service 1989, p. 3). A fourth 7,200 ft2) of suitable habitat does not (6) Conduct public education projects. reflect the range of variability observed Each of these recovery actions has colony was considered an addition to in several natural colonies that have been accomplished. The Service entered the Couchville population (TDEC 1991, been discovered since the recovery plan into a cooperative agreement with TDEC p. 3), or population 5 of the recovery was completed. Many of these colonies in 1986, as authorized by section 6 of plan (Service 1989, p. 7). The fifth are constrained by the small patches of the Act, for the conservation of colony was smaller, not in a natural cedar glade habitat where they occur endangered and threatened plant habitat setting, and not assigned to any and provide evidence of a wider range species, providing a mechanism for of the recovery plan populations in the of natural variability in habitat patch TDEC to acquire Federal funds that have TDEC report (1991, p. 2). Other colonies size and colony size in this species that supported much of the work described have been discovered during the course was not recognized at the time the here. The State of Tennessee and other of surveys conducted in the cedar glades recovery plan was published. We partners have provided matching funds of middle Tennessee, and the number of believe a better measure of the in order to receive funding from the extant natural colonies now totals 15. A sustainability of both natural and Service under this agreement. summary of the currently known introduced colonies is whether they Recovery Action (1): Continue populations and their colonies is have persisted over time and remained Systematic Searches for New Colonies provided below in Table 1, and in the stable or increased in number. There discussion concerning recovery action Eight colonies of Echinacea currently are 31 out of the total 35 number (5). Because systematic searches colonies that meet this definition, 19 of tennesseensis were known to exist when the recovery plan was completed for new colonies have been conducted which are the colonies described above since the completion of the recovery as secure. (Service 1989, pp. 3–7). TDEC and its contractors conducted searches of cedar plan and led to the discovery of Recovery Plan Implementation glades, identified through the use of previously unknown colonies, we The current recovery plan identifies aerial photography and topographic consider this recovery action to be six primary actions necessary for maps, during the late 1980s through completed. recovering Echinacea tennesseensis: 1990 and found five previously BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 48902 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS EP12AU10.101 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 48903

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS EP12AU10.102 48904 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS EP12AU10.103 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 48905

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C accessions taken by MOBOT were Numerous nurseries have grown E. Recovery Action (2): Secure Each provided to the National Center for tennesseensis for the purpose of Colony Genetic Resource Preservation (NCGRP) providing seeds and plants for in Fort Collins, Colorado, for long-term establishing new colonies (TDEC 1991, We have assessed the security of each cold storage. The NCGRP protocol is to pp. 3–8). Baskauf et al. (1994, pp. 184– Echinacea tennesseensis colony based test seed viability every 5 years for 186) determined that less than 10 on observations about threats and accession, and MOBOT also tests seed percent of the genetic variability of E. defensibility ranks reported in the 1996 viability on a periodic basis and collects tennesseensis is distributed among status survey of this species (TDEC new material for accessions every 10 to populations and concluded from this 1996, Appendix I) and information in 15 years (Albrecht 2008b, pers. com.). low level of differentiation that the our files concerning protection actions, While these accessions do not contain origin of seed used in establishing new such as construction of fences. We seed from every unique colony, they populations probably is not a critical consider a total of 19 colonies, represent each of the populations of consideration. We summarize the including 14 of the 16 colonies within Echinacea tennesseensis. These distribution of these introduced DSNAs, to be secure. Colonies 2.4 and accessions provide satisfactory material colonies among E. tennesseensis 2.7, which lie within portions of the should establishment of colonies from populations in the discussion extensive Cedars of Lebanon State reintroductions or additional concerning recovery action number (5) Forest DSNA that have been threatened introductions become necessary in the below. Because 20 new colonies have by past outdoor recreational vehicle future, as Baskauf et al. (1994, pp.184– been established, we consider this (ORV) use or that are generally degraded 186) concluded that there is a low level recovery action completed. cedar glade habitat are not secure. The of genetic differentiation among State of Tennessee’s Natural Area populations of E. tennesseensis and the Recovery Action (5): Monitor Colonies Preservation Act of 1971 (T.C.A. 11– origin of seeds probably is not a critical and Conduct Management Activities, if 1701) protects DSNAs from vandalism concern for establishing new Necessary, To Maintain the Recovered and forbids removal of endangered and populations. Therefore, we consider this State in Each Colony threatened species from these areas. recovery action completed. Drew and Clebsch (1995, pp. 62–67) TDEC monitors these sites and protects conducted the first monitoring of them as needed through construction of Recovery Action (4): Establish New Echinacea tennesseensis during the fences or placement of limestone Colonies summers of 1987 through 1989. They boulders to prevent illegal ORV access. TDEC (2006, pp. 3–6) reported produced estimates of density, total We do not consider secure the nine flowering stem counts for 21 introduced numbers of E. tennesseensis, the area colonies that exist only on private land colonies, but we have eliminated 2 of occupied in the primary colony of each and are not under some form of these from our analysis of the current of the five populations included in the management agreement. The introduced status of Echinacea tennesseensis. One recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 3–7), population at the Stones River National of these excluded colonies was and information on the demographic Battlefield, designated a DSNA in 2003, introduced into a privately owned glade structure of these populations. TDEC consists of three secured colonies well outside of the known range of the monitored each of these same E. requiring no protective management, as species in Marshall County, consists of tennesseensis colonies one or more the National Park Service (NPS) controls only a few vegetative stems, and is of times in the years 1998, 2000, and 2001, access to the site. doubtful viability. The other excluded, and again in 2004 with some The recovery plan states that introduced colony is located in modifications to the protocol used in Echinacea tennesseensis will be Rutherford County, approximately 7 the previous 3 years (TDEC 2005, pp. 3– considered recovered when there are ‘‘at miles from the nearest E. tennesseensis 5). TDEC used monitoring data collected least five secure wild populations, each population, and is believed to contain during 2004 (TDEC 2005, pp. 16–21) to with three self-sustaining colonies of at hybrids with E. simulata. The number of establish that (1) the total number of least a minimal size.’’ There are now 19 flowering stems reported from the adult plants in a colony could be secure, self-sustaining colonies of E. monitored colonies during 2005 ranged estimated by dividing the number of tennesseensis distributed among six from 1 to 6,183. flowering stems by 1.75, and (2) the populations (Table 1), fulfilling the All but 1 of the 19 introduced number of juveniles and seedlings recovery plan intentions of establishing colonies known from 2005 have greater combined could be estimated by a sufficient number and distribution of than 100 flowering stems, and the multiplying the estimated number of secure populations and colonies to estimated total number of plants in adults by 14. These relationships were remove the risk of extinction for this these colonies ranged from 866 to established using only data from natural species within the foreseeable future. 52,997 (TDEC 2006, pp. 4–5). An populations, so they might not Therefore, we consider this recovery additional introduced colony (2.9) that accurately represent ratios among life- action completed. was not surveyed during 2005, but history classes in introduced contained thousands of plants in 2006 populations. TDEC (2007, pp. 2–7) Recovery Action (3): Provide a Seed (Lincicome 2006, pers. com.), brings the reported summary data for monitoring Source Representative of Each Natural number of extant introduced colonies to plots in four introduced colonies that Colony 20. These 20 colonies were established were sampled during 2006, but the data The Missouri Botanical Garden at various times since 1970 through the have not been analyzed to establish (MOBOT), an affiliate institution of the introductions of seed or transplanted relationships for estimating numbers of Centers for Plant Conservation (CPC), individuals (TDEC 1991, pp. 3–7; TDEC adults, juveniles, and seedlings from collected accessions of seeds from each 1996, Appendix I; Lincicome 2008, pers. flowering stem counts. The average ratio of the six populations currently in com.), often from an undocumented or of juveniles to flowering adults existence during 1994 (Albrecht 2008a, mixed origin with respect to the source estimated from the 2004 monitoring was pers. com.). This collection is populations (Hemmerly 1976, p. 81; the highest ever recorded; however, this maintained according to CPC guidelines Hemmerly 1990, pp. 1–8; TDEC 1991, ratio provided the best data available for (Albrecht 2008b, pers. com.). Five of the pp. 4–8; Clebsch 1993, pp. 8–9). estimating overall colony sizes in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 48906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules

combination with flowering stem counts was constructed. The total number of adjacent to Cedars of Lebanon State that were conducted in 2005 at all but plants estimated in the Mount View Forest in 1994 and was brought to one colony (TDEC 2006, pp. 2–5). population in 2005 was 53,956. TDEC’s attention in 2006, at which time Because it is not possible to conduct The Vesta population (number 2 in there were thousands of plants intensive monitoring of multiple stage the recovery plan) consisted of two (Lincicome 2006, pers. com.). Of the classes of Echinacea tennesseensis at all known colonies when the recovery plan four secure colonies (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and colonies in a single year, TDEC and the was completed (Service 1989, pp. 3–4). 2.8) in this population, we have data to Service conducted flowering stem This population now consists of eight demonstrate that three have remained censuses of all known E. tennesseensis colonies primarily located within an stable or increased over time. We do not colonies in 2005 in order to derive area of approximately 3 km2 (1.5 mi2) in have historic data for colony 2.8, but the population estimates using the approach Wilson County. Five of these colonies large number of individuals estimated at described above. While the total stem (2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9) were this colony in 2005 suggests that it estimates provided by TDEC (2006, pp. introduced. Colony 2.1 occurs primarily should be self-sustaining. The total 4–5) and Drew and Clebsch (1995, pp. in the Vesta Cedar Glade DSNA, with number of plants from the Vesta 62–67) cannot be statistically compared, approximately 15 percent lying outside population in secured and self- they provide a basis for examining long- the DSNA on private lands. Drew and sustaining colonies was estimated to be term persistence and apparent stability Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated that this 122,965 plants in 2005. Colonies that we in the sizes of the colonies included in colony consisted of 20,900 plants do not consider secure accounted for an the recovery plan from observations occupying an area of 1,420 m2 (15,285 estimated 2,220 total plants in 2005. made 16 years apart. ft2) in 1987. TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated The Vine population (number 3 in the The Mount View population (number recovery plan) consisted of three known 1 in the recovery plan) consisted of a a total of 66,771 plants at this colony in single known colony when the recovery 2005. Colonies 2.2 and 2.8 are located colonies at the time the recovery plan plan was completed (Service 1989, p. 3). entirely within the Vesta Cedar Glade was completed (Service 1989, pp. 4–6). This population now includes two more DSNA in glade openings that are This population now consists of 11 separated by forested habitat; colony 2.2 colonies located within an area of colonies, one introduced, in addition to 2 2 the original colony 1.1, which is located was reported in the recovery plan to approximately 17 km (7 mi ) in Wilson in Mount View DSNA. These three have consisted of approximately 5,000 and Rutherford Counties. Three of these colonies are located within an plants occupying an area of colonies (3.7, 3.8, and 3.9) were 2 2 approximately 2.5 km2 (1 mi2) area in approximately 140 m (1,500 ft ), in introduced. Approximately two-thirds Davidson County. In 1987, Drew and addition to several small clumps that of the land on which colony 3.1 is Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated the size Hemmerly (1976, pp. 81) established located lies within Vine Cedar Glade of the population at colony 1.1 to be from seed. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. DSNA, with the remaining one-third on 12,000 plants occupying an area of 830 VII) estimated this colony occupied an private land. Drew and Clebsch (1995, 2 2 m2 (8,934 ft2). Based on number of area of 374 m (4,026 ft ) in 1996, and p. 62) estimated that colony 3.1 flowering stems reported by TDEC estimated a total of 36,634 plants at this consisted of 20,200 plants occupying an 2 2 (2006, p. 4) for this colony in 2005, colony in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 4). area of 800 m (8611 ft ) in 1987. TDEC there were an estimated 46,543 plants. Colony 2.8 is located in a glade opening, (1996, Appendix I, p. XI–XII) reported Colony 1.2 was discovered on private approximately one-tenth of a mile the plants occupied about 760 m2 in land in 1990 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, southwest of colony 2.2, and TDEC 1996, and estimated there were 64,757 p. III), and Clebsch (1993, p. 18) (2006, p. 5) estimated a total of 18,369 plants in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 4). Most estimated there were 9,057 plants plants at this colony in 2005. Colonies of colony 3.2 is located in a site occupying an area of 682 m2 (7,341 ft2) 2.3, 2.4, and 2.7 are located in the acquired by TDEC using a Recovery in 1993. The colony on private land was Cedars of Lebanon State Forest DSNA. Land Acquisition Grant and matching bulldozed in 1999. Colony 1.2 now Colony 2.3 was planted in 1983 with State funds for addition to the State’s consists of plants introduced onto seeds produced in a Tennessee Valley natural areas system and was estimated adjacent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Authority greenhouse from Vesta in the recovery plan to contain as many (COE) lands to provide long-term population stock; in 1996, TDEC (1996, as 50,000 plants (Service 1989, p. 5). protection (TDEC 2003, p. 2). TDEC Appendix I, p. VIII) observed 50 to 100 Data are summarized here for four (2006, p. 4) estimated there were 2,304 plants occupying an area of element occurrences that TDEC tracks plants at colony 1.2 in 2005. TDEC approximately 15 m2 (161 ft2). TDEC and which make up this colony. TDEC (2006, p. 5) reported 5,109 plants at (2006, p. 5) estimated a total of 1,191 (1996, Appendix I, p. XIII) estimated a colony 1.4. This colony was established plants here in 2005. Colony 2.4 total of 94,537 plants at this colony in on COE lands, near a public use area at consisted of only 9 plants in 2005, most 1996, occupying an area of 5,889 m2 J. Percy Priest Reservoir, using plants of which were seedlings (TDEC 2006, p. (63,389 ft2); in 2005 there were an grown at Tennessee Tech University 5). Colony 2.7 is a small occurrence estimated 222,480 plants (TDEC 2006, p. and was estimated to have consisted of believed to have been introduced, but 4). The portions of the colony that lie 70–80 plants in 1996 (TDEC 1996, for which no reliable data prior to 2005 entirely or mostly within the protected Appendix I, p. V). Each of the colonies exist, at which time the colony lands contained an estimated 213,548 of in the Mount View population is consisted of an estimated 51 plants these plants. Colony 3.3 is located in a considered secure, and the available (TDEC 2006, p. 5). Colony 2.6 was privately owned site that was highly data indicate they are self-sustaining planted at the entrance to Cedars of disturbed and consisted of 90 plants in based on the fact that they have Lebanon State Park prior to 1982 and 1996 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XIV). remained stable or increased over time. was observed in 1996 to include This colony contained an estimated 94 While colony 1.2 was reduced in size approximately 100 plants (TDEC 1996, individuals in 2004, and remains a when the private lands where it Appendix I, p. XI); in 2005 there were small colony of questionable viability occurred were developed, the colony an estimated 2,160 plants (TDEC 2006, today (TDEC 2006, p. 4) because it has increased in size since it was p. 5). Colony 2.9 was introduced into a occurs in highly disturbed habitat. relocated onto COE lands and a fence powerline right-of-way on private land Colony 3.4 is located in the Gattinger

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 48907

Glade and Barrens DSNA, which is and 3.9) in this population have approximately eight privately owned owned by the developers of the remained stable or increased over time. tracts when the recovery plan was Nashville Super Speedway who donated The total number of plants from the completed (Service 1989, p. 7). This a conservation easement to the State of Vine population in secured and self- population now consists of three natural Tennessee. Clebsch (1993, p. 18) sustaining colonies was estimated to be and five introduced colonies, all located estimated there were 71,576 plants at 413,074 total plants in 2005. Colonies within an approximately 2.8 km2 (1.1 colony 3.4 in 1993. TDEC estimated this that we do not consider secure mi2) area of Davidson and Rutherford colony occupied an area of 2,723 m2 accounted for an estimated 125,281 total Counties on lands owned by the State of (23,310 ft2) in 1996 and estimated a total plants in 2005. Tennessee (except for colony 5.2, which of 111,249 plants at this colony in 2005 The Allvan population (number 4 in is on private land). Drew and Clebsch (TDEC 2006, p. 4). While damage from the recovery plan) consisted of one (1995, p. 62) estimated a total of 89,300 off-road vehicle (ORV) use has been known colony (4.1) at the time the plants at colony 5.1 in 1987, occupying historically observed at this colony in recovery plan was completed; two other an estimated area of 13,860 m2 (149,189 the past (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. colonies had been extirpated from this ft2). TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a total XV), it has not been noted since the site population (Service 1989, p. 6). This of 63,026 plants at this site in 2005. became a DSNA, and we consider it population now consists of two Colony 5.2 is divided between two secure. Colonies 3.3 through 3.7 occur introduced colonies on public lands, as privately owned properties. The plants on private land. Clebsch (1993, p. 18) colony 4.1 has been lost to disturbance. in this colony are found in habitats of estimated a total of 15,769 plants at Drew and Clebsch (1995, pp. 62–64) varying quality, having been subjected estimated a total of 3,700 plants at colony 3.5 in 1993, occupying an to past disturbance in some places, and colony 4.1 in 1987, occupying an estimated area of 669 m2 (7,201 ft2). in 1993, vegetative plants were observed estimated area of 470 m2 (5,059 ft 2), and TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XVI) occupying an area of approximately noted the vegetation at this site differed observed that the density of plants had 1,823 m2 (19,623 ft2) (TDEC 1996, from the other colonies probably as a decreased at this colony in 1996, while Appendix I, p. XXV). TDEC (2006, p. 4) result of human disturbance. TDEC the plants occupied a larger area—an estimated a total of 3,360 plants at this (1996, Appendix I, p. XXI) noted the estimated 1,483 m2 (15,963 ft2). TDEC colony in 2005. Colonies 5.3 through 5.6 poor condition of Echinacea (2006, p. 4) estimated a total of 21,677 were established from seed and tennesseensis plants during a site visit plants at this colony in 2005. TDEC juveniles planted at Long Hunter State to colony 4.1 in 1996, and observed no (1996, Appendix I, p. XVII) observed Park during 1989 through 1991. TDEC 2 2 plants at this colony in 2005 (TDEC about 50 plants in a 1 m (11 ft ) area 2006, p. 4). Colonies 4.2 and 4.3 were (1996, Appendix I, p. XXVI) observed at colony 3.6 in 1996, but by 2005 the established from seeds and cultivated 428 plants at colony 5.3 in 1996, and colony contained an estimated 1,346 juveniles planted on COE lands at J. noted that they were spread out over a plants. Colony 3.7 was established from Percy Priest Reservoir in the years 1989 wide area; in 2005, TDEC (2006, p. 4) seeds planted in 1978 and 1979 on through 1991 (TDEC 1991, pp. 5–6), and estimated a total of 13,774 plants at this private property owned by a native earthen berms have been constructed at colony. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. plant enthusiast. While many plants both sites to deter ORV traffic and XXVII) observed that a thriving were killed during drought conditions reduce visibility of these colonies. In population containing thousands of in 1980, TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. 1996, colony 4.2 contained many robust individuals had become established at XVIII) reported that there were adult plants, but few seedlings and non- colony 5.4 by 1996, and that the plants approximately 250 plants at this colony flowering adults, in an area of 32 m2 north of the road dividing this colony 2 in 1985 and between 300 and 500 plants (344 ft2) (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. occupied an area of 2,153 m (23,175 2 in 1996. TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a XXII). In 2005, TDEC estimated a total ft ); in 2005, TDEC (2006, p. 5) total of 14,614 plants at this colony in of 52,997 plants at this site. This secure estimated a total of 7,397 and 8,460 2005. Colonies 3.8 and 3.9 were colony is located in the Elsie plants were on the north and south established from seeds planted into two Quarterman Cedar Glade DSNA, on COE sides of the road, respectively. Colony sites at Cedars of Lebanon State Forest lands at J. Percy Priest Reservoir, and 5.5 consisted of less than 200 total in 1990 and 1991. In 1996, TDEC (1996, appears to be self-sustaining based on plants occupying an estimated area of Appendix I, p. XIX) counted 452 plants the increases observed over time. 53 m2 (570 ft2) in 1996 (TDEC 1996, by surveying eight glades/barrens Colony 4.3 is located near the COE Appendix I, pp. XXVIII–XXIX); in 2005, within the larger complex where colony Hurricane Public Access Area. In 1996, there were an estimated 11,143 plants 3.8 is located. TDEC (2006, p. 5) this colony consisted of many robust (TDEC 2006, p. 4). Colony 5.6 consisted estimated a total of 15,969 plants at adult plants and abundant juveniles in of approximately 2,000 plants colony 3.8 in 2005. TDEC (1996, an area of about 68 m2 (732 ft2) (TDEC occupying an area of 51 m2 (549 ft2) in Appendix I, p. XX) observed 1996, Appendix I, p. XXIII). In 2005, 1996 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, pp. approximately 200 to 300 plants TDEC (2006, p. 5) estimated a total of XXIX–XXX); in 2005, there were an occupying an estimated area of 51 m2 3,300 plants at this colony. We believe estimated 7,251 plants (TDEC 2006, p. (549 ft2) at colony 3.9 in 1996; in 2005, this colony is self-sustaining; however, 5). Colony 5.7, for which no historic they estimated 23,520 total plants at this it is vulnerable to impacts from illegal monitoring data are available, is the colony (TDEC 2006, p. 5). We have no ORV access as noted above. The total only naturally occurring colony at Long data prior to 2005 for colonies 3.10 and number of plants in the one secured and Hunter State Park. TDEC (2006, p. 4) 3.11, both of which are located on self-sustaining colony in the Allvan estimated that a total of 146 plants were private land. In 2005, TDEC (2006, p. 5) population contained an estimated found here in 2005. Colony 5.8 was estimated a total of 46,063 plants at 52,997 plants in 2005. The colony that established in 2000 at the Fate Sanders colony 3.10, which is located near the we do not consider secure accounted for Barrens DSNA, located on COE lands at Nashville Super Speedway; colony 3.11 an estimated 3,300 total plants in 2005. J. Percy Priest Reservoir. This colony is contained an estimated 16,586 plants. The Couchville population (number 5 located approximately 3.5 km (2.8 mi) These data provide evidence that the in the recovery plan) consisted of a southeast of colony 5.3 in the four secure colonies (i.e., 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, single known colony spanning Couchville population. TDEC planted

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 48908 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules

199 plants into two areas at this site in within constraints imposed by locations numerous public education projects 2000 (Lincicome 2008, pers. com.) and within the urban interface, to control have been conducted, we consider this estimated a total of 866 plants at this woody species, including the invasive recovery action completed. colony in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 5). The exotic privet (Ligustrum sp.), at many Summary of Factors Affecting the data above demonstrate that the secure DSNAs where E. tennesseensis occurs; Species colonies (5.1, 5.4, 5.6, and 5.8) in the these include Mount View Glade, Vesta Couchville population are self- Cedar Glade, Vine Cedar Glade, Cedars Section 4 of the Act and its sustaining based on stable or increasing of Lebanon State Forest Natural Area, implementing regulations (50 CFR part numbers over time. In addition, Gattinger’s Cedar Glade and Barrens, 424) set forth the procedures for listing, although the number of plants in colony Elsie Quarterman Cedar Glade, Fate reclassifying, or removing species from 5.1 decreased between 1987 and 2005, Sanders Barrens, and Couchville Cedar the Federal Lists of Endangered and we conclude that colony 5.1 is secured Glade and Barrens. TDEC works with Threatened Wildlife and Plants. and self-sustaining for the foreseeable the Tennessee Division of Forestry ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as future due to the large number of (TDF) to ensure that colonies in the including any species or subspecies of individuals at this site persisting over a Cedars of Lebanon State Forest, which fish or wildlife or plants, and any 20-year period. The total number of includes three DSNAs, receive distinct vertebrate population segment plants from the Couchville population necessary management and collaborates of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when in secured and self-sustaining colonies with TDF to implement all prescribed mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the was estimated to be 87,000 total plants burns that are conducted on DSNAs. ‘‘species’’ is determined we then in 2005. Colonies that we do not TDEC also has cooperated with COE on evaluate whether that species may be consider secure accounted for an construction of fences or earthen berms endangered or threatened because of estimated 28,423 total plants in 2005. around sites at J. Percy Priest Reservoir one or more of the five factors described The Stones River National Battlefield that have been threatened by urban in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species population (i.e., population 6, not encroachment and illegal ORV use. The that are already listed as endangered or included in the recovery plan) consists NPS monitors the introduced threatened, the analysis of threats must of three colonies established through population at the Stones River National include an evaluation of both the threats introductions into an area that is now a Battlefield and controls woody plant currently facing the species, and the DSNA. Colony 6.1 was established from encroachment and vegetation threats that are reasonably likely to seeds introduced by Hemmerly in 1970 succession in the glade openings where affect the species in the foreseeable (1976, pp. 10, 81), as part of the colonies occur, as necessary. future following the delisting or investigations into seedling survival Because TDEC and other entities have downlisting and the removal or under field conditions. This colony monitored Echinacea tennesseensis reduction of the Act’s protections. consists of two groupings of plants, one populations many times since the time We must consider these same five of which consisted of 3,880 plants and of listing and have managed colonies on factors in reclassifying or delisting a the other 28 plants in 1995; the colony protected lands to minimize threats species. We may delist a species occupied an area of 39 m2 (420 ft2) in from vegetation succession and ORV according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 1996 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXXI). use, and will continue to do so in the available scientific and commercial data TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a total of foreseeable future, we consider this indicate that the species is neither 21,729 plants at this colony in 2005. recovery action completed. endangered nor threatened for the Colonies 6.2 and 6.3 are thought to have following reasons: (1) The species is Recovery Action (6): Conduct Public been established by a neighbor of the extinct; (2) the species has recovered Education Projects battlefield in the mid-1990s (Hogan and is no longer endangered or 2008, pers. com.) and consisted of 134 Echinacea tennesseensis was featured threatened (as is the case for Echinacea and 401 plants, respectively, in 1995 in newspaper (Paine 2002, p. 6B) and tennesseensis); and/or (3) the original (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXXII). In magazine (Simpson and Somers 1990, scientific data used at the time the 2005, TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated that pp. 14–16; Campbell 1992, p. 32; Daerr species were classified were in error. there were 2,031 plants at colony 6.2 1999, p. 50) articles to educate the A species is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in and 7,303 plants at colony 6.3. The total general public about the species, the danger of extinction throughout all or a number of plants estimated in the cedar glade ecosystem it occupies, and ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is Stones River National Battlefield the conservation efforts directed ‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become population in 2005 was 31,063 total towards them. The Service published endangered within the foreseeable plants, all in secured and self-sustaining ‘‘An Educator’s Guide to the Threatened future throughout all or a significant colonies. and Endangered Species and portion of its range. The word ‘‘range’’ is Numerous partners are involved in Ecosystems of Tennessee,’’ which used here to refer to the range in which managing Echinacea tennesseensis includes instructional materials about the species currently exists, and the populations on their lands. TDEC the cedar glades of middle Tennessee word ‘‘significant’’ refers to the value of compared management options at the and two federally listed plant species that portion of the range being Vesta Cedar Glade DSNA, including found in the glades, E. tennesseensis considered to the conservation of the mowing, discing, burning, and and Astragalus bibullatus (Pyne’s species. application of selective herbicides for ground-plum) (Service no date, pp. 50– The Act does not define the term removal of grasses (Clebsch 1993, pp. 2– 53). TDEC personnel periodically lead ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ However, in a 8). TDEC and TNC have used grazing of guided wildflower walks in the cedar January 16, 2009, memorandum goats, mechanical removal, and glades DSNAs and educate the public addressed to the Acting Director of the herbicide applications to control woody about E. tennesseensis and other Federal Service from the Office of the Solicitor, species encroachment on the margins of and State listed plant species during Department of the Interior, concluded, cedar glade openings at Mount View those walks. In 2000, TDEC published ‘‘ * * * as used in the [Act], Congress Glade DSNA (TDEC 2003, pp. 4–9). 10,000 copies of an educational poster intended the term ‘foreseeable future’ to TDEC applies prescribed fire or featuring Tennessee’s rare plants, describe the extent to which the mechanical removal, as needed and including E. tennesseensis. Because Secretary can reasonably rely on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 48909

predictions about the future in making due to housing construction and another which it depends. All but one of these determinations about the future was destroyed during the construction DSNAs lie within or adjacent to State or conservation status of the species’’ (U.S. of a trailer park. The three extant Federal conservation lands that provide Department of the Interior 2009). occurrences at that time were all located complementary conservation benefits by ‘‘Foreseeable future’’ is determined by on private lands, one of which was maintaining functioning ecosystems the Service on a case-by-case basis, imminently threatened by surrounding within which these colonies occur and taking into consideration a variety of residential development. This Davidson harboring additional protected colonies species-specific factors such as lifespan, County occurrence has since been of E. tennesseensis. genetics, mating systems, demography, protected as a DSNA. Approximately Providing a large, protected cedar threat projection timeframes, and two-thirds of the Wilson County glade and forest ecosystem connected to environmental variability. occurrence that was on public lands is the Vesta Cedar Glade, Vine Cedar In considering the foreseeable future now a DSNA, and one-third remains on Glade, and Cedars of Lebanon State as it relates to the status of Echinacea private lands. The Rutherford County Forest DSNAs, the non-DSNA lands in tennesseensis, we defined the occurrence was located in a gravel the Cedars of Lebanon State Forest also ‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be the extent to parking lot of a commercial property contain three colonies. An additional which, given the amount and substance and has been destroyed. Since the time colony is located at the Cedars of of available data, events, or effects can of listing, protection of natural colonies Lebanon State Park, which is adjacent to and should be anticipated, or the threats on publicly owned conservation lands the Cedars of Lebanon State Forest. reasonably extrapolated. We considered and establishment of additional colonies Long Hunter State Park contains six the historical data to identify any through introductions have effectively colonies and provides a functioning relevant existing threats acting on the diminished the threat residential ecosystem buffer to the Couchville species, ongoing conservation efforts, development once posed to the survival Cedar Glade and Barrens DSNA. COE data on species abundance and of E. tennesseensis. lands at J. Percy Priest Reservoir provide persistence at individual sites since the The final listing rule for Echinacea habitat for three colonies in addition to time of listing, identifiable tennesseensis described recreational the colonies in the Elsie Quarterman informational gaps and uncertainties development as a threat facing the Cedar Glade and Fate Sanders Barrens regarding residual and emerging threats Davidson County (i.e., Mount View) DSNAs that lie within these lands. The to the species, as well as population population, but did not address the Gattinger Cedar Glade is the only DSNA status and trends, its life history, and specific nature of the recreational on private land that contains a colony then looked to see if reliable predictions development. The Mount View, Allvan, of Echinacea tennesseensis. While this about the status of the species in and Couchville populations occur in property is not buffered by other public response to those factors could be close proximity to J. Percy Priest lands, it lies within a large tract of land drawn. We considered the historical Reservoir, construction of which was owned by the Nashville Super data to identify any relevant existing completed in 1967. It is possible that Speedway, which has been a partner in trends that might allow for reliable development of recreational facilities the conservation of E. tennesseensis. prediction of the future (in the form of following completion of the reservoir The three colonies at Stones River extrapolating the trends). We also presented a threat to E. tennesseensis or National Battlefield are included among considered whether we could reliably cedar glade habitats. However, four of the 16 within DSNAs, and lie within a predict any future events (not yet acting the secure and self-sustaining colonies protected buffer provided by NPS lands. on the species and, therefore, not yet (i.e., colonies 1.2, 1.4, 4.2, and 5.8) are Given the statutory nature of the manifested in a trend) that might affect located within the now-protected lands DSNA designation and TDEC’s the status of the species, recognizing buffering the reservoir, three of which demonstrated commitment to protecting that our ability to make reliable were designated as Environmentally lands maintaining the quality of habitats predictions into the future is limited by Sensitive Areas in the J. Percy Priest in the DSNAs, we find that the colonies the variable quantity and quality of 2007 Master Plan Update (Corps 2007, located in DSNAs or in acquired lands available data. pp. 3–1 to 4–3). Therefore, recreational that will be added to Tennessee’s Following a rangewide threats development no longer poses a threat to natural area system will receive analysis we evaluate whether Echinacea the survival of E. tennesseensis. adequate long-term protection and tennesseensis is threatened or There are now 27 colonies, necessary management to control endangered in any significant portion(s) distributed among the six populations of vegetation succession and disturbance of its range. Echinacea tennesseensis, which occur from human activities. Although entirely or primarily on conservation colonies 2.4 and 2.7 contain an Factor A. Present or Threatened lands in either State or Federal estimated 9 and 51 individuals, Destruction, Modification, or ownership. The lone exception to public respectively, are threatened by ORV use, Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range ownership of these conservation lands and lack long-term protection and The final rule to list Echinacea is the Gattinger Glade DSNA, which is management, impacts to these two tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR managed by TDEC but privately owned colonies will not have a significant 32604; June 6, 1979) identified the and protected under a conservation effect on the status of the species, as following habitat threats: habitat loss easement. We consider 19 of these they represent less than one percent of due to residential and recreational colonies to be secure and self- the Vesta population. Delisting development and succession of cedar sustaining. Sixteen colonies, all but two Echinacea tennesseensis is not likely to glade communities in which the species of which are secure, are located entirely weaken TDEC’s commitment to the occurred. or primarily within DSNAs that were conservation of these DSNAs, several of Losses of cedar glade habitat and designated at various times between which harbor one or more federally colonies of Echinacea tennesseensis to 1974 and 2009. TDEC manages most of listed plant species other than E. residential development have posed a these DSNAs, in some cases tennesseensis. significant threat to E. tennesseensis. At cooperatively with TDF, for the purpose We have identified five colonies on the time of listing, one population of E. of conserving E. tennesseensis and the public lands outside of DSNAs that we tennesseensis had been reduced in size cedar glades and barrens ecosystem on consider secure and that contribute to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 48910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules

the improved status of this plant (i.e., either an endangered or a threatened to these cultivars, so a Service interstate colonies 1.2, 1.4, 3.9, 5.4, and 5.6). species. We expect that the lands permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the These colonies are described under containing the 19 secure and self- Act is not required. The prohibitions in Recovery Action (5) in the Recovery sustaining colonies, which accounted the Tennessee Rare Plant Protection Act Plan Implementation section, above. for approximately 83 percent of the total also do not apply to cultivars. However, illegal ORV activity remains individuals estimated to exist in 2005, Native Americans have long used a threat to this species at three colonies will remain permanently protected and genus Echinacea for medicinal purposes on public lands (colonies 2.4, 2.7, and that they will be managed to maintain and it is commercially available as a 4.3), which we have not counted among cedar glade habitat. We anticipate that popular homeopathic supplement. the 19 secure, self-sustaining colonies. these conditions will remain essentially However, E. tennesseensis is not TDEC has worked to reduce this threat the same in the foreseeable future due included in the primary species used in in several DSNAs by constructing to the adequate regulatory mechanisms commercial medicinal applications and barbed wire fences and limestone in place to protect suitable habitat for E. studied for their medicinal properties barriers. The COE has also extended tennesseensis in the majority of its range (Senchina et al. 2006, p. 1). We are not efforts in the form of constructing fences (see discussion under Factor D— aware of collections of this species and/or earthen berms near three Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory being taken for this purpose and do not colonies on lands at J. Percy Priest Mechanisms, below). In conclusion, we believe this poses a threat to this species Reservoir to reduce this threat. Damage find that the present or threatened currently or into the foreseeable future. from ORV activity was noted by TDEC destruction, modification, or Summary of Factor B: Echinacea (1996, Appendix I) at only one of the 9 curtailment of its habitat or range is no tennesseensis and hybrids displaying colonies located exclusively on private longer a threat to the species throughout the attractive traits of the species are lands that are not under recovery its range, both now and in the readily available commercially. protection agreements, none of which foreseeable future. Collection or intentional killing of were counted among the 19 secure, self- specimens has been observed in the past sustaining colonies in this rule. While Factor B. Overutilization for at only five colonies, one of which we illegal ORV use remains a potential Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or counted as secure in our analysis for threat in certain colonies of Echinacea Educational Purposes this proposed delisting rule because this tennesseensis (TDEC 1996, p. 21 and The final rule to list Echinacea colony became a DSNA in 1998, and no Appendix I), we do not have data to tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR evidence of digging at this site has been suggest that such activity is occurring at 32604; June 6, 1979) identified recorded since 1996. a magnitude to cause E. tennesseensis to collection for commercial and In addition, E. tennesseensis is not meet the definition of either an recreational purposes as a threat to the among the primary species of Echinacea endangered or a threatened species species. Limited digging, presumably for used for medicinal applications. In throughout its range. horticultural purposes, has been conclusion, we find that overutilization The threat of habitat loss or historically observed at five colonies of for commercial, recreational (i.e., modification in the form of ORV activity E. tennesseensis, three (colonies 5.3, 5.5, gardening), scientific, or educational has been observed at a total of four and 5.6) of which are located in high purposes is no longer a threat to E. colonies. Three of the colonies (colonies visibility areas within Long Hunter State tennesseensis throughout its range, both 2.4, 2.7, and 4.3) are located on public Park (TDEC 1996, p. 21). We do not now and for the foreseeable future. land, and the fourth colony is located on consider these three colonies, or a Factor C. Disease or Predation private land (TDEC 1996, Appendix I). fourth (colony 3.5) located on private Recovery protection agreements are land, to be secure for the purposes of The June 6, 1979, listing rule for lacking at nine colonies that exist solely this proposed rule. However, we do Echinacea tennesseensis (44 FR 32604) on private lands, leaving them consider the fifth colony, colony 4.2, to stated that light grazing occurred at vulnerable to habitat disturbance. be secure because it became a DSNA in colony 3.2 but acknowledged that the However, we believe that Echinacea 1998, and no evidence of digging at this degree of threat, if any, posed by this tennesseensis is neither endangered nor site has been recorded since 1996. grazing was uncertain. A robust threatened as a result of habitat loss or Echinacea tennesseensis that population of E. tennesseensis remains modification because there are 19 secure originated from natural populations, but at this site today, much of which TDEC and self-sustaining colonies distributed is now grown from seed or vegetative acquired for addition to Tennessee’s among six geographically defined propagules produced in nurseries, is natural area system. Deer browse has populations. TDEC coordinates available for commerce from one been identified as a potential threat at management of these colonies to reduce nursery and for sale by multiple the three colonies in Stones River threats to E. tennesseensis and its nurseries only within the State of National Battlefield (TDEC 1996, habitat in cooperation with other Tennessee. Thus, a Service interstate Appendix I, pp. XXXI–XXXIII) and at partners. Examples of these permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the colony 5.5 (TDEC 2007, p. 5). However, management activities were provided Act is not required. TDEC regulates we have no data to suggest that such under Recovery Action (5) in the commerce of plants listed as endangered browsing threatens these colonies, Recovery Plan Implementation section, by the State of Tennessee through which have persisted since being above. issuance of State permits for this established by introductions 10 or more Summary of Factor A: Although ORV purpose, as authorized by the Tennessee years ago. activity has the potential to negatively Rare Plant Protection Act of 1985 Summary of Factor C: Although affect the habitat of four Echinacea (T.C.A. 11–26–201). There are also at grazing or deer browse do affect tennesseensis colonies, we consider this least two cultivars of E. tennesseensis, Echinacea tennesseensis, we have no to be a low-level threat and we do not which are of hybrid origin, now data to suggest that either grazing or have any information to indicate that available for interstate commerce and deer browse are a threat to any colonies this is currently, or likely to be, a easily found on the internet. As hybrids, of E. tennesseensis or that they will significant threat that would cause E. the prohibitions on interstate commerce become a threat now or within the tennesseensis to meet the definition of under section 9 of the Act do not apply foreseeable future. In conclusion, we

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 48911

find that neither disease nor predation Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade naturally occurring ones, but this could is a threat to E. tennesseensis Factors Affecting Its Continued be a factor to investigate if introduced throughout its range, both now and for Existence colonies are found to be less stable than the foreseeable future. As discussed under the Factor A natural colonies through future monitoring. At this time, however, we Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing section above, the June 6, 1979, listing do not believe that low genetic Regulatory Mechanisms rule for Echinacea tennesseensis (44 FR variability threatens the continued When Echinacea tennesseensis was 32604) identified vegetation succession as a threat to the species and the cedar existence of E. tennesseensis now or listed, the State of Tennessee had no within the foreseeable future. laws protecting rare plants. Therefore, glades it depends on for its survival. A the final rule to list E. tennesseensis as status survey for the species, completed Climate Change endangered (44 FR 32604; June 6, 1979) in 1996 (TDEC 1996, p. 22), did not The Intergovernmental Panel on identified the lack of State protections address this threat in its analysis of Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that as a threat to the species. Echinacea factors affecting the survival of the warming of the climate system is tennesseensis is now listed as species, but it did recommend unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. 30). endangered by the State of Tennessee controlling vegetation succession at Numerous long-term changes have been and is protected under the Tennessee some sites in the survey’s appendix observed including changes in arctic Rare Plant Protection Act of 1985 containing population and site status temperatures and ice; widespread (T.C.A. 11–26–201), which forbids reports. TDEC has developed a program changes in precipitation amounts, ocean persons from knowingly uprooting, for managing vegetation succession and salinity, and wind patterns; and digging, taking, removing, damaging, other threats to cedar glades on DSNAs occurrences of extreme weather destroying, possessing, or otherwise inhabited by E. tennesseensis and two including droughts, heavy precipitation, disturbing for any purpose, any other federally listed species, and heat waves and the intensity of tropical endangered species from private or continues to work cooperatively with cyclones (IPCC 2007b, p. 7). Based on public lands without the written TDF, Tennessee State Parks, and COE to scenarios that do not assume explicit permission of the landowner. While this manage potential threats in habitats climate policies to reduce greenhouse statute does not forbid the destruction of where colonies exist on properties gas emissions, global average E. tennesseensis or its habitat, neither belonging to these agencies. Further, we temperature is projected to rise by 2– does the Act afford such protection to are not aware of any colonies of E. 11.5 °F by the end of this century listed plants. Furthermore, those tennesseensis that have been lost to (relative to the 1980–1999 time period) colonies located in DSNAs are afforded vegetation succession. (Karl et al. 2009, p. 24). Species that are additional protection by the State of The TDEC (1996, p. 2) identified low dependent on specialized habitat types, Tennessee’s Natural Area Preservation levels of genetic variability in Echinacea limited in distribution, or the extreme Act of 1971 (T.C.A. 11–1701), which tennesseensis as a threat but did not periphery of their range will be most forbids removal of State endangered and report any deleterious effects of susceptible to the impacts of climate threatened species from DSNAs but also diminished genetic variability, such as change. Such species could currently be protects these areas from vandalism. inbreeding depression, that would found at high elevations, at extreme While it is possible that the State of indicate this factor poses a threat to this northern/southern latitudes, dependent Tennessee could determine that species. Baskauf et al. (1994, p. 186) on delicate ecological interactions, or Echinacea tennesseensis should be documented low levels of genetic sensitive to nonnative competitors. removed from their State endangered variability in E. tennesseensis, but also While continued change is certain, the plant list if the species is removed from observed that this species is not devoid magnitude and rate of change is the Federal List of Endangered and of genetic variability and is evidently unknown in many cases. Threatened Plants, we believe that the well adapted to its cedar glade habitat. As stated above, Echinacea DSNA protected status of the lands They noted that given the relatively tennesseensis is only found in limestone where the 19 secure, self-sustaining large sizes of many of the naturally barrens and cedar glades habitats of the colonies currently exist will continue to occurring populations, random genetic Central Basin, Interior Low Plateau provide adequate regulatory protection drift should not erode genetic variability Physiographic Province, in Davidson, for those colonies in the foreseeable in E. tennesseensis very rapidly. They Rutherford, and Wilson Counties in future, including protection from threats suggested that dramatic population Tennessee. Within this ecosystem, E. due to habitat destruction and fluctuations or extinction and tennesseensis inhabits both xeric (dry) modification. colonization events could have occurred communities, where there is no soil or Summary of Factor D: We do not have historically and eroded genetic soil depth less than 5 cm (2 in.), and any information to indicate that the variability (Baskauf et al. 1994, p. 186). subxeric (moderately dry) communities existing regulatory mechanisms in However, it is possible that this species on soils deeper than 5 cm (2 in.). absence of the Act’s protection would be might never have possessed high levels Estimates of the effects of climate inadequate to address the remaining, of genetic variability (Walck et al. 2002, change using available climate models low-level threats to the species from p. 62). lack the geographic precision needed to habitat destruction or modification (see Reduction of genetic diversity could predict the magnitude of effects at a Factor A discussion above). Therefore, pose a threat to viability of the scale small enough to discretely apply we find that lack of regulatory introduced colonies, as they could be to the range of Echinacea tennesseensis. protection is no longer a threat to E. subject to losses in genetic variability However, data on recent trends and tennesseensis. In conclusion, we find that result from establishing colonies predicted changes for the Southeast that the currently existing regulatory from a subset of the total genetic United States (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 111– mechanisms described above are structure found in the species (i.e., the 116) provide some insight for evaluating adequate, and they will remain adequate founder effect) (Allendorf and Luikart the potential threat of climate change to to protect E. tennesseensis and its 2007, p. 129). We have no information E. tennesseensis. Since 1970, the habitat in the majority of its range now concerning the genetic structure of average annual temperature of the and within the foreseeable future. introduced colonies compared to region has increased by about 2 °F, with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 48912 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules

the greatest increases occurring during produced flowers during 1989, when tennesseensis now or within the winter months. The geographic extent of annual rainfall levels increased. This foreseeable future. areas in the Southeast region affected by ability to vary flower production in Summary of Factor E: Because (1) moderate to severe spring and summer relation to annual rainfall levels, Management activities take place to drought has increased over the past combined with its apparently long-lived prevent the loss of 19 secure Echinacea three decades by 12 and 14 percent, habit (individual plants live up to at tennesseensis colonies; (2) 31 colonies respectively (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). least 6 years, but the maximum lifespan are considered self-sustaining, as These trends are expected to increase. is probably much longer (Baskauf 1993, measured by persistence and Rates of warming are predicted to p. 37)), should enable E. tennesseensis demographic stability over time (despite more than double in comparison to to remain viable through periods of low levels of genetic variation within what the Southeast has experienced drought. the species), and 19 of these 31 colonies since 1975, with the greatest increases Studies examining the influence of are considered secure; (3) there is projected for summer months. genetic, ecological, and physiological biological and historical evidence to Depending on the emissions scenario factors on the distribution of Echinacea suggest that E. tennesseensis is well- used for modeling change, average tennesseensis have not found sufficient adapted to endure predicted effects of temperatures are expected to increase by climate change; and (4) we have no ° ° differences between this species and 4.5 F to 9 F by the 2080s (Karl et al. more widespread congeners (other evidence that climate changes observed 2009, pp. 111). While there is species belonging to the genus to date have had any adverse impact on considerable variability in rainfall Echinacea) to explain its endemism in E. tennesseensis or its habitat, we find predictions throughout the region, the cedar glades of middle Tennessee that the other natural or manmade increases in evaporation of moisture based on these factors alone (Baskin et factors considered here are no longer a from soils and loss of water by plants in al. 1997, p. 385; Baskauf and Eickmeier threat to E. tennesseensis and are not response to warmer temperatures are 1994, p. 963; Snyder et al. 1994, p. 64). likely to become so in the foreseeable expected to contribute to increased Rather, it has been suggested that future. frequency, duration, and intensity of historical and ecological factors Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis droughts (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 112). contributed to the evolution of this Despite the observations of Drew and We have carefully assessed the best species and its subsequent restriction to Clebsch (1995, p. 66) that seedlings had scientific and commercial data available cedar glade habitats in middle an approximately 50-percent probability and have determined that Echinacea Tennessee (Baskin et al. 1997, p. 385). of dying during the drought conditions tennesseensis is no longer endangered Baskin et al. (1997, pp. 390–391) that occurred during their first year of or threatened throughout all of its range. suggested that an ancestral form of E. study, we believe there is biological and We must next determine if the threats to historical evidence to suggest that tennesseensis migrated to and became E. tennesseensis are non-uniformly Echinacea tennesseensis is well-adapted established in middle Tennessee during distributed such that populations in one to endure predicted effects of climate the Hypsithermal Interval (i.e., the portion of its range experience higher change. First, Drew and Clebsch (1995, period of greatest post-glacial warming, level of threats than populations in p. 66) found that stage-specific mortality ca. 8,000 to 5,000 years before present), other portions of its range. When rates during the drought conditions of and that as temperatures became cooler, considering the listing status of the their first year of study for non- the only members of this ancestral taxon species, the first step in the analysis is reproductive E. tennesseensis plants that survived were those growing in the to determine whether the species is in with a cumulative leaf length greater cedar glades of the region—i.e., the danger of extinction or likely to become than 30 cm (12 in) (i.e., non-seedling, plants that eventually gave rise to E. endangered throughout all of its range. vegetative plants) and plants that were tennesseensis. For instance, if the threats on a species reproductively active ranged from 17 to While predictions of increased are acting only on a portion of its range, 31 percent, considerably lower than drought frequency, intensity, and but the effects of the threats are such rates observed in seedlings. Second, duration suggest that seedling survival that they place the entire species in Hemmerly (1976, p. 12) found that could be a limiting factor for Echinacea danger of extinction or likely to become mature plants possessed several roots tennesseensis, the species possesses endangered, we would list the entire averaging 38.4 cm (15.1 in.) in length other biological traits (i.e., long life species. and extending an average depth of 23.1 span, interannual reproductive Significant Portion of the Range cm (9.1 in.) into the soil, often variability) to provide resilience to this branching horizontally after reaching an threat. Further, predicted climate Data indicate that numbers of impenetrable rock layer. These changes for the Southeast United States Echinacea tennesseensis and observations suggest that while could, similar to what is believed to protections for its habitat have seedlings face higher risks of mortality have taken place during the significantly increased since it was in drought conditions, this species Hypsithermal Interval (Delcourt et al. listed under the Act. As identified possesses biological characteristics that 1986, p. 135), lead to an expansion of above, only ORV use, illegal or increase drought resistance in later life- openings within forested areas of otherwise, potentially poses a known history stages. That non-seedling life middle Tennessee, potentially threat to E. tennesseensis. While stages of E. tennesseensis are more increasing the area occupied by cedar disturbance from ORV use has been resilient to drought than seedlings is glade communities. This presumably observed in the past and remains supported by Drew and Clebsch’s (1995, would increase the amount of suitable unaddressed at 4 colonies on publicly p. 67) observation of demographic habitat available for E. tennesseensis. and privately owned lands harboring E. patterns in flowering individuals. Based on these factors and the fact that tennesseensis (i.e., colonies 2.4, 2.7, 4.3 During 1988, 41 percent of the plants we have no evidence that climate and 1 privately owned colony), these 4 that had flowered during 1987 failed to changes observed to date have had any colonies accounted for only 2 percent of do so, presumably influenced by adverse impact on E. tennesseensis or the species’ total distribution in 2005. drought. However, 68 percent of the its habitat, we do not believe that Most of the largest colonies are located plants that failed to flower during 1988 climate change is a threat to E. in DSNAs and are protected from this

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 48913

threat by fences or other barriers that affect 50 CFR 17.95 because critical post-delisting monitoring programs, but TDEC has constructed and maintained. habitat was never designated for this we remain responsible for compliance At the time the 1989 recovery plan was species. with section 4(g) and, therefore, must written, there were five extant The Act and its implementing remain actively engaged in all phases of populations ranging in size from regulations set forth a series of general post-delisting monitoring. We also seek approximately 3,700 to 89,000 plants prohibitions and exceptions that apply active participation of other entities that and consisting of one to three colonies to all endangered plants. The are expected to assume responsibilities each (Clebsch 1988, p. 14; Service 1989, prohibitions under section 9(a)(2) of the for the species’ conservation after p. 2). There were an estimated total of Act make it illegal for any person delisting. In August 2008, TDEC agreed 146,000 individual plants in 1989 (Drew subject to the jurisdiction of the United to be a cooperator in the post-delisting and Clebsch 1995, p. 62). Recovery States to import or export, transport in monitoring of Echinacea tennesseensis. efforts have secured habitat for 19 interstate or foreign commerce in the We have prepared our Draft Post- colonies that are self-sustaining and course of a commercial activity, sell or Delisting Monitoring Plan for Tennessee distributed among six geographically offer for sale in interstate or foreign Purple Coneflower (Echinacea defined populations. These 19 secured, commerce, remove and reduce tennesseensis) (Plan) (Service 2009). self-sustaining colonies accounted for Echinacea tennesseensis to possession The draft plan: an estimated 761,055 individual plants from areas under Federal jurisdiction, or (1) Summarizes the species’ status at in 2005, or approximately 83 percent of remove, cut, dig up, or damage or the time of delisting; the total species’ distribution; colonies destroy E. tennesseensis on any other (2) Defines thresholds or triggers for that we do not consider secure area in knowing violation of any State potential monitoring outcomes and accounted for 159,224 individual plants, law or regulation such as a trespass law. conclusions; or approximately 17 percent of the total Section 7 of the Act requires that (3) Lays out frequency and duration of species’ distribution. Therefore, while Federal agencies consult with us to monitoring; there is potential for ORV use to impact ensure that any action authorized, (4) Articulates monitoring methods, certain colonies, should that threat funded, or carried out by them is not including sampling considerations; materialize, it is not a significant impact likely to jeopardize the species’ (5) Outlines data compilation and to the species as a whole. The number continued existence. If this proposed reporting procedures and of secured plants and colonies is rule is finalized, it would revise 50 CFR responsibilities; and adequate to ensure that Factor A is no 17.12 to remove (delist) E. tennesseensis (6) Proposes a post-delisting longer a threat to the species overall. from the Federal List of Endangered and monitoring implementation schedule, Thus, destruction and modification of Threatened Plants, and these including timing and responsible habitat from ORV use is not a threat to prohibitions would no longer apply. parties. the species throughout all or a Delisting E. tennesseensis is expected to Colonies of Echinacea tennesseensis significant portion of its range now or have positive effects in terms of selected for post-delisting monitoring into the foreseeable future. increasing management flexibility by are indicated with an asterisk in Table In conclusion, major threats to State and Federal governments. 1 of this proposed rule and in the draft Echinacea tennesseensis have been plan. Post-Delisting Monitoring reduced, managed, or eliminated. Concurrent with this proposed Although the potential threats to E. Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the delisting rule, we announce the draft tennesseensis habitat are fairly uniform Secretary of the Interior, through the plan’s availability for public review. throughout the range of the species, they Service, to implement a system, in The draft post-delisting monitoring plan are more pronounced on privately cooperation with the States, to monitor can be viewed in its entirety at: http: owned lands where the species occurs. for not less than 5 years the status of all //www.fws.gov/cookeville/. Copies can However, we do not consider threats to species that are delisted due to recovery. also be obtained from the U.S. Fish and these unsecured colonies to affect a Post-delisting monitoring refers to Wildlife Service, Cookeville Field significant portion of the range of this activities undertaken to verify that a Office, Tennessee (see FOR FURTHER species. Therefore, we have determined species delisted due to recovery remains INFORMATION CONTACT section). We seek that none of the existing or potential secure from the risk of extinction after information, data, and comments from threats, either alone or in combination the protections of the Act no longer the public regarding Echinacea with others, warrant listing E. apply. The primary goal of post- tennesseensis and the post-delisting tennesseensis as endangered in any delisting monitoring is to monitor the monitoring strategy. We are also seeking significant portion of its range or that species to ensure that its status does not peer review of this draft plan these threats are likely to cause E. deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, concurrently with the proposed rule tennesseensis to become endangered to take measures to halt the decline so comment period. We anticipate within the foreseeable future in any that proposing to list it as endangered or finalizing this plan, considering all significant portion of its range. threatened is not again needed. If at any public and peer review comments, prior On the basis of this evaluation, we time during the monitoring period, data to making a final determination on the believe E. tennesseensis no longer indicate that protective status under the proposed delisting rule. requires the protection of the Act, and Act should be reinstated, we can initiate Peer Review we propose to remove E. tennesseensis listing procedures, including, if throughout its range from the Federal appropriate, emergency listing. At the In accordance with our policy List of Endangered and Threatened conclusion of the monitoring period, we published in the Federal Register on Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)). will review all available information to July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the determine if relisting, the continuation OMB’s Final Information Quality Effects of This Proposed Rule of monitoring, or the termination of Bulletin for Peer Review, dated This rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) to monitoring is appropriate. December 16, 2004, we will solicit the remove Echinacea tennesseensis from Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly expert opinions of at least three the Federal List of Endangered and requires cooperation with the States in appropriate and independent specialists Threatened Plants. This rule would not development and implementation of regarding the science in this proposed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 48914 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules

rule and the draft post-delisting or more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR Proposed Regulation Promulgation monitoring plan. The purpose of such 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more Accordingly, we hereby propose to review is to ensure that we base our persons’’ refers to the persons to whom amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter decisions on scientifically sound data, a collection of information is addressed I, title 50 of the Code of Federal assumptions, and analyses. We will by the agency within any 12-month Regulations, as set forth below: send peer reviewers copies of this period. For purposes of this definition, proposed rule and the draft post- employees of the Federal government PART 17—[AMENDED] delisting monitoring plan immediately are not included. The draft post- following publication in the Federal delisting monitoring plan does not 1. The authority citation for part 17 Register. We will invite peer reviewers contain any new collections of continues to read as follows: to comment, during the public comment information that require approval by Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. period, on the specific assumptions and OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– conclusions in this proposed delisting Act. It will not impose recordkeeping or 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. and draft post-delisting monitoring reporting requirements on State or local § 17.12 [Amended] plan. We will summarize the opinions governments, individuals, businesses, or 2. Amend § 17.12 (h) by removing the of these reviewers in the final decision organizations. An agency may not entry for ‘‘Echinacea tennesseensis’’ documents, and we will consider their conduct or sponsor, and a person is not under ‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’ from the input and any additional information required to respond to, a collection of List of Endangered and Threatened we receive as part of our process of information unless it displays a Plants. making a final decision on this proposal currently valid OMB control number. and the draft post-delisting monitoring Dated: July 29, 2010. National Environmental Policy Act plan. Such communication may lead to Wendi Weber, a final decision that differs from this We have determined that we do not Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife proposal. need to prepare an environmental Service. assessment or environmental impact [FR Doc. 2010–19742 Filed 8–11–10; 8:45 am] Required Determinations statement, as defined in the National BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Clarity of the Rule Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in connection with We are required by Executive Orders DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 12866 and 12988 and by the regulations adopted under section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, to write all rules in plain published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal language. This means that each rule we 50 CFR Part 17 publish must: Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR (1) Be logically organized; 49244). [FWS–R9–IA–2008–0121; [96100–1671– 0000–B6] (2) Use the active voice to address Government-to-Government readers directly; Relationship With Tribes Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (3) Use clear language rather than and Plants; 90–Day Finding on a jargon; In accordance with the President’s memorandum of April 29, 1994, Petition to Delist the Tiger (Panthera (4) Be divided into short sections and tigris) sentences; and ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations (5) Use lists and tables wherever with Native American Tribal AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, possible. Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive Interior. If you feel that we have not met these Order 13175, and the Department of ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition requirements, send us comments by one Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we finding. of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES readily acknowledge our responsibility section. To better help us revise the to communicate meaningfully with SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and rule, your comments should be as recognized Federal Tribes on a Wildlife Service (Service), announce a specific as possible. For example, you government-to-government basis. We 90-day finding on a petition to remove should tell us the numbers of the have determined that there are no tribal the tiger (Panthera tigris) from the List sections or paragraphs that are unclearly lands affected by this proposal. of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of written, which sections or sentences are References Cited too long, the sections where you feel 1973, as amended. We find that the lists or tables would be useful, etc. A complete list of references cited is petition does not present substantial available upon request from the scientific or commercial information Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Cookeville Field Office (see FOR indicating that removing the species OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife may be warranted. which implement provisions of the Author Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Therefore, we will not initiate a status 3501 et seq.), require that Federal The primary author of this document review in response to this petition. We agencies obtain approval from OMB is Geoff Call, Cookeville Field Office ask the public to submit to us any new before collecting information from the (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT information that becomes available public. The OMB regulations at 5 CFR section). concerning the status of the tiger or 1320.3(c) define a collection of threats to it or its habitat at any time. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 information as the obtaining of This information will help us monitor information by or for an agency by Endangered and threatened species, and encourage the conservation of this means of identical questions posed to, Exports, Imports, Reporting and species. or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or recordkeeping requirements, DATES: The finding announced in this disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 Transportation. document was made on August 12,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:14 Aug 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS