Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33159

■ 7. On page 25492, top half of the page, Standards for the FY 2026 Program thresholds and benchmarks are the table titled ‘‘Table V.H–14: Year’’, the entries for the clinical corrected to read as follows: Previously Established Performance outcomes domain’s achievement

TABLE V.H–14—PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE FY 2026 PROGRAM YEAR

Achievement Measure short name threshold Benchmark

Clinical Outcomes Domain

MORT–30–AMI ...... 0.874426 0.890687 MORT–30–HF ...... 0.885949 0.912874 MORT–30–PN (updated cohort) ...... 0.843369 0.877097 MORT–30–COPD ...... 0.914691 0.932157 MORT–30–CABG ...... 0.970568 0.980473 COMP–HIP–KNEE * ...... 0.024019 0.016873 * Lower values represent better performance.

■ 8. On page 25588, second column, improved such that it is not currently in We request that you send comments footnote paragraph (footnote 1232), lines danger of extinction throughout all or a only by the methods described above. 3 through 5, the phrase ‘‘2018: https:// significant portion of its range, but that We will post all comments on http:// www.arthritis.org/Documents/Sections/ it is still likely to become so in the www.regulations.gov. This generally About-Arthritis/arthritis-facts-stats- foreseeable future. This proposed rule means that we will post any personal figures.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2019.’’ is completes the 5-year status review for information you provide to us (see corrected to read ‘‘2019: https:// the species, initiated on March 12, 2018. Information Requested, below, for more www.arthritis.org/getmedia/e1256607- If this proposal is finalized, smooth information). fa87-4593-aa8a-8db4f291072a/2019- coneflower would be reclassified as a Document availability: This proposed abtn-final-march-2019.pdf. Accessed threatened species under the Act. We rule and supporting documents May 13, 2021.’’ seek information, data, and comments (including the Recovery Plan) are from the public on this proposal. We Karuna Seshasai, available at http://www.regulations.gov also propose to establish a rule under under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020– Executive Secretary to the Department, section 4(d) of the Act for the protection Department of Health and Human Services. 0063. of smooth coneflower. [FR Doc. 2021–13481 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete BILLING CODE 4120–01–P DATES: We will accept comments Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish received or postmarked on or August 23, and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological 2021. Comments submitted Services Field Office, 551–F Pylon DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR electronically using the Federal Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, (919) 856–4520. Individuals who use a Fish and Wildlife Service below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. telecommunications device for the deaf Eastern Time on the closing date. We (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 50 CFR Part 17 must receive requests for public Service at (800) 877–8339. hearings in writing, at the address [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0063; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 212] shown in CONTACT, by August 9, 2021. Executive Summary RIN 1018–BD83 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Why we need to publish a rule. Under Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on this proposed rule by one of the the Act, a species may warrant and ; Reclassifying Smooth following methods: reclassification from endangered to Coneflower as Threatened With (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal threatened if it no longer meets the Section 4(d) Rule eRulemaking Portal: http:// definition of endangered (in danger of www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, extinction). The smooth coneflower is enter the Docket Number for this Interior. listed as endangered, and we are proposed rule, which is FWS–R4–ES– proposing to reclassify the smooth ACTION: Proposed rule. 2020–0063. Then, click on the Search coneflower as threatened (i.e., SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and button. On the resulting page, in the ‘‘downlist’’ the species) because we Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Search panel on the left side of the have determined it is not currently in reclassify from endangered to screen, under the Document Type danger of extinction. Downlisting a threatened (‘‘downlist’’) the smooth heading, check the Proposed Rule box to species as a threatened species can only coneflower ( laevigata) under locate this document. You may submit be made by issuing a rulemaking. the Act of 1973, as a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment What this document does. This rule amended (Act) due to improvements in Now!’’ proposes to reclassify the smooth the species’ overall status since the (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail coneflower from endangered to original listing in 1992. This proposed to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: threatened on the Federal List of action is based on a thorough review of FWS–R4–ES–2020–0063, U.S. Fish and Endangered and Threatened Plants the best available scientific and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 (List), with a rule issued under section commercial information, which Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 4(d) of the Act to ensure the continued indicates that the species’ status has 3803. conservation of this species. This rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33160 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

also serves to complete the 5-year (1) Reasons we should or should not appropriate in light of comments and review for the smooth coneflower. reclassify the smooth coneflower as a new information received. For example, The basis for our action. Under the threatened species, and if we should we may expand the incidental take Act, we may determine that a species is consider delisting the species. prohibitions to include activities that an endangered species or a threatened (2) New information on the historical this proposed rule would allow if we species because of any of five factors: and current status, range, distribution, conclude that such additional activities (A) The present or threatened and population size of the smooth are likely to cause direct injury or destruction, modification, or coneflower. mortality to the species. Conversely, we curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) (3) New information on the known may establish additional exceptions to overutilization for commercial, and potential threats to the smooth the incidental take prohibitions so as to recreational, scientific, or educational coneflower, including fire management, allow activities that this proposed rule purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) regulatory mechanisms, and any new would prohibit if we conclude that such the inadequacy of existing regulatory management actions that have been activities would not cause direct injury mechanisms; or (E) other natural or implemented, and whether management or mortality to the species and will manmade factors affecting its continued would continue should the species be facilitate the conservation and recovery existence. This five-factor analysis delisted. of the species. applies whether we are proposing to (4) New information regarding the life You may submit your comments and newly list a species as endangered or history, ecology, and habitat use of the materials concerning this proposed rule threatened, change its classification, or smooth coneflower. by one of the methods listed in (5) Current or planned activities remove the species from listing. We may ADDRESSES. We request that you send within the geographic range of the reclassify a species if the best available comments only by the methods smooth coneflower that may have commercial and scientific data indicate described in ADDRESSES. adverse or beneficial impacts on the the species no longer meets the If you submit information via http:// species. www.regulations.gov, your entire applicable definition in the Act. We (6) Information on regulations that are have determined that the smooth submission—including any personal necessary and advisable to provide for identifying information—will be posted coneflower is no longer in danger of the conservation of the smooth extinction and, therefore, does not meet on the website. If your submission is coneflower and that the Service can made via a hardcopy that includes the Act’s definition of an endangered consider in developing a 4(d) rule for species, but the species does meet the personal identifying information, you the species. may request at the top of your document Act’s definition of a threatened species (7) Information concerning the extent because it is still affected by current and that we withhold this information from to which we should include any of the public review. However, we cannot ongoing habitat loss, degradation, and section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or fragmentation from development. guarantee that we will be able to do so. whether any other forms of take should We will post all hardcopy submissions Existing management and regulatory be excepted from the prohibitions in the mechanisms are not sufficient to protect on http://www.regulations.gov. 4(d) rule. Comments and materials we receive, the species from these threats such that Please include sufficient information as well as supporting documentation we it is not in danger of extinction the with your submission (such as scientific used in preparing this proposed rule, foreseeable future. journal articles or other publications) to will be available for public inspection We are proposing to promulgate a allow us to verify any scientific or on http://www.regulations.gov. section 4(d) rule. We propose to prohibit commercial information you include. the activities identified under section Please note that submissions merely Public Hearing 9(a)(2) of the Act for endangered species stating support for, or opposition to, the Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for as a means to provide protections to the action under consideration without a public hearing on this proposal, if smooth coneflower. We also propose providing supporting information, requested. Requests must be received by specific exceptions from these although noted, will not be considered the date specified in DATES. Such prohibitions for our State agency in making a determination, as section requests must be sent to the address partners, so that they may continue with 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION certain activities covered by an seq.) directs that a determination as to CONTACT. We will schedule a public approved cooperative agreement to whether any species is an endangered or hearing on this proposal, if requested, carry out conservation programs that threatened species must be made and announce the date, time, and place will facilitate the conservation and ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific of the hearing, as well as how to obtain recovery of the species. and commercial data available.’’ reasonable accommodations, in the Because we will consider all Information Requested Federal Register at least 15 days before comments and information we receive the hearing. For the immediate future, We intend that any final action during the comment period, our final we will provide these public hearings resulting from this proposed rule will be determinations may differ from this using webinars that will be announced based on the best scientific and proposal. Based on the new information on the Service’s website, in addition to commercial data available and be as we receive (and any comments on that an announcement in the Federal accurate and effective as possible. new information), we may conclude that Register. The use of these virtual public Therefore, we request comments or the smooth coneflower should remain hearings is consistent with our information from other concerned listed as endangered instead of being regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). governmental agencies, Native reclassified as a threatened, or we may American tribes, the scientific conclude that the species no longer Peer Review community, industry, or other warrants listing as either an endangered In accordance with our policy, interested parties concerning this species or a threatened species. In ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative proposed rule. addition, we may change the parameters Policy for Peer Review in Endangered We particularly seek comments of any prohibitions or conservation Species Act Activities,’’ which concerning: measures if we conclude it is published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33161

34270), and our August 22, 2016, www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us- which reach 15 centimeters (cm) (5.9 in) Director’s Memorandum, ‘‘Peer Review species.html for the species profile for in length and 8 cm (3.2 in) in width, Process’’ (Service 2016), which updates this . have long petioles. They are elliptical to and clarifies the July 1, 1994 policy, we broadly lanceolate, taper to the base, Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in will seek the expert opinion of at least and are smooth to slightly rough. The This Proposed Rule three appropriate and independent midstem leaves are smaller than the specialists regarding scientific data and DOD = Department of Defense basal leaves. Flower heads are usually interpretations contained in this EO = element occurrence solitary and are composed of ray flowers proposed rule. The purpose of such GADNR = Department of Natural and disk flowers. The ray flowers (petal- review is to ensure that our decisions Resources like structures on composite flower are based on scientifically sound data, GPCA = Georgia Plant Conservation heads) are light pink to purplish, Alliance assumptions, and analysis. We will send MOU = memorandum of understanding strongly drooping, and 5 to 8 cm (1.9 to peer reviewers copies of this proposed NCBG = Botanical Garden 3.1 in) long. Disk flowers (tiny tubular rule immediately following publication NCDACS = North Carolina Department of flowers in the central portion of in the Federal Register. We will ensure and Consumer Services composite flower head) are about 5 that the opinions of peer reviewers are NCDOT = North Carolina Department of millimeters (mm) (0.2 in) long; have objective and unbiased by following the Transportation tubular purple corollas; and have mostly guidelines set forth in the Director’s NCNHP = North Carolina Natural Heritage erect, short triangular teeth (McGregor Memorandum. We will invite these peer Program 1968, p. 129; Radford et al. 1968, p. reviewers to comment during the public NCPCP = North Carolina Plant 1110; Kral 1983, p. 1135; Gaddy 1991, comment period on both the proposed Conservation Program p. 4; Gleason and Cronquist 1991, p. ROW = right-of-way reclassification of smooth coneflower SCDNR = Department of 532; Weakley 2015, p. 1114). and the proposed 4(d) rule. We will Natural Resources Reproductive Biology summarize the opinions of these SCDOT = South Carolina Department of reviewers in the final decision Transportation Flowering occurs from May through documents, and we will consider the SCHTP = South Carolina Heritage Trust July, and fruits develop from late June comments and information we receive Program to September (Gaddy 1991, p. 18). from peer reviewers during the public TNC = The Nature Conservancy Sexual reproduction results in a gray- comment period on this proposed rule, USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers brown, oblong-prismatic achene (dry, as we prepare a final rule. USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture one-seeded fruit), usually four-angled, USDOE = U.S. Department of Energy and 4 to 5 mm (0.16 to 0.20 in) long Previous Federal Actions USFS = U.S. Forest Service, U.S. (Kral 1983, p. 1135; Gaddy 1991, p. 4). On October 8, 1992, we published in Department of Agriculture Asexual reproduction in the form of USGS = U.S. Geological Survey the Federal Register (57 FR 46340) a VADCR = Department of short clonal make new rosettes final rule listing smooth coneflower as Conservation and Recreation in both garden and wild settings (Kunz an endangered species. The final rule VADNH = Virginia Division of Natural 2018, pers. comm.). Pollinators for identified the following threats to Heritage smooth coneflower include various smooth coneflower: Extirpation due to species of butterflies, wasps, and bees the absence of natural disturbance (fire I. Proposed Reclassification (Collins and Fore 2009, pp. 452–454). and/or grazing), highway construction Determination The smooth coneflower is dependent on and improvement, gas line installation, Background insect pollinators for cross ; residential and industrial development, bees are the most effective pollinators, collecting (for horticulture and Species Information while skippers and butterflies are pharmaceutical industries), A thorough review of the , frequent nectar foragers (Gadd 2006, p. use on highway and utility rights-of- life history, ecology, and overall 15). way, encroachment of exotic species, viability of smooth coneflower is Based on observations of the closely and suspected beetle damage. On April presented in the recovery plan (Service related Tennessee purple coneflower 18, 1995, we published the recovery 1995, entire) and the 5-year review (Echinacea tennesseensis), seeds are plan for this plant (Service 1995, entire). (Service 2011, entire). Below, we probably dispersed by seed-eating birds On August 2, 2011, we completed a 5- present a summary of the biological and or mammals such as goldfinches year review for the smooth coneflower distributional information discussed in (Spinus tristis) and white-tailed deer (Service 2011, entire). In that review, we those documents and new information (Odocoileus virginianus) (Service 1989, recommended that we should downlist published or obtained through p. 9). Smooth coneflower seeds only the species to threatened because a coordination with species experts and appear to germinate on bare soil (Gadd substantial number of new occurrences data synthesis since then. 2006, p. 20). Walker (2009, p. 12) failed of the species have been located since to recover any smooth coneflower seeds Taxonomy and Species Description completion of the recovery plan. The from the soil seed bank (natural storage 2011 review is a supplemental Smooth coneflower is a perennial of seeds in the soil) at three North document to this proposed rule and is herb in the aster family (). It Carolina (NC) sites; however, he was provided at http://www.regulations.gov was first described as Brauneria able to recover smooth coneflower seeds under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020– laevigata by Boynton and Beadle in in both spring and fall leaf litter 0063. 1903, from material collected in South samples. While the recovery plan On March 12, 2018, we initiated Carolina (SC) in 1888. It was transferred mentions that reproductive success is another 5-year review (83 FR 10737). to the genus Echinacea in 1929 (Small generally poor in this species (Service This proposed rule completes that 1933, p. 1421; McGregor 1968, p. 120). 1995, p. 5), Gadd (2006, p. 17) found review. Smooth coneflower grows up to 1.5 that smooth coneflower plants at three For additional details on previous meters (59 inches (in)) tall from a NC sites are not pollinator-limited and Federal actions, see discussion under vertical root stock; stems are smooth, even short visits by pollinators result in Recovery, below. Also see http:// with few leaves. Large basal leaves, seed set. Recent augmentation/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33162 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

reintroduction projects have been distance of unsuitable habitat (separated that were considered of cultivated origin successful in Georgia (GA), NC, and SC from other EOs by 2 kilometers (km) (1.2 at that time but are now believed to be using nursery-grown plants (Alley 2018, miles (mi)) or more), or as a principal natural populations, for a total of 27 pers. comm; Mackie, USFS 2018, pers. EO. A principal EO is two or more EOs populations (Service 1995, p. 2). Several comm.; Kunz 2018, pers. comm.). located less than or equal to 2 km (1.2 new smooth coneflower occurrences mi) from each other, with suitable Distribution and Abundance have been discovered since the time of habitat in between them. For the listing, including 15 in GA, 11 in NC, In this proposed rule, we follow purposes of evaluating the recovery of 28 in SC, and 10 in Virginia (VA) guidance for defining EOs and this species, it is most appropriate to (GADNR 2019, unpaginated; NCNHP populations described by NatureServe consider populations rather than 2019, unpaginated; SCHTP 2019, (2002, pp. 10–11; NatureServe 2004, pp. individual EOs. unpaginated; VADNH 2018, 6, 14). We define an EO as any current At the time of listing in 1992, this (or historical) location where smooth plant had 21 extant populations (57 FR unpaginated; White 2018, p. 6). coneflower occurs (or occurred), 46340; October 8, 1992). When the Current State Natural Heritage regardless of the spatial relationship recovery plan was written in 1995, there Program database records document 44 with other EOs. We define a population were 24 known populations rangewide, extant populations of smooth as either a stand-alone EO isolated by with an additional 3 populations in SC coneflower (Table 1).

TABLE 1—TOTAL NUMBER OF EXTANT POPULATIONS OF SMOOTH CONEFLOWER THAT OCCUR IN EACH STATE WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPECIES [GADNR 2019, unpaginated; NCNHP 2019, unpaginated; SCHTP 2019, unpaginated; VADNH 2018, unpaginated; White 2018, entire]

Number of extant State populations

Virginia (VA) ...... 15 North Carolina (NC) ...... 6 South Carolina (SC) ...... 12 Georgia (GA) ...... 11

Totals ...... 44

A single collection of this species unpaginated). The healthiest smooth variation within populations, suggesting from may represent a waif (a coneflower populations are managed that populations may be adapting to plant outside of its natural range) with prescribed fire or mechanical local environments (Apsit and Dixon (Reveal and Broome 1982, p. 194). One thinning, which provides the smooth 2001, entire). Because this genetic herbarium specimen from Lancaster coneflower plants abundant sunlight variation exists, all populations should County, (PA), is on file at and little competition from other plant be maintained to conserve genetic the Missouri Botanical Garden. No species (Gaddy 1991, p. 1). diversity since each population contains additional collections have been made only a subset of the total genetic Population Structure from PA. The PA Natural Heritage variation. Regional population Program considers this species to be Land managers and biologists have differentiation may be important in the extirpated in the State (Kunsman 2018, routinely monitored smooth coneflower selection of material to establish new pers. comm.). populations since before the species was populations, which suggests that, for listed in 1992. Monitoring at most greatest success, reintroduction projects Range and Habitat populations usually involves a use local source material (Apsit and At the time of listing in 1992, all of flowering stem count, while each rosette Dixon 2001, p. 76). the known smooth coneflower of leaves is counted at some sites. Recovery populations occurred in the Flowering stem counts are generally the or mountain physiographic provinces of most common survey method because Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to GA, SC, NC, and VA. Since listing, new they require less time and biologists develop and implement recovery plans populations have been found in the generally agree that plants produce no for the conservation and survival of inner coastal plain/sandhills region of more than one flowering stem per endangered and threatened species, SC (White 2018, p. 4) and the coastal growing season, making this method a unless we determine that such a plan plain of GA (Moffet 2018, pers. comm.). conservative count of how many plants will not promote the conservation of the Smooth coneflower is typically found actually exist at a site. Basal rosettes and species. Recovery plans must, to the in open woods, glades, cedar barrens, plants in vegetative state (non- maximum extent practicable, include roadsides, clear cuts, dry limestone flowering) can be very hard to find and objective, measurable criteria which, bluffs, and power line ROWs. The count in dense herbaceous vegetation when met, would result in a species is usually found on magnesium- (NCPCP 2018, unpaginated; White 2018, determination, in accordance with the and calcium-rich soils associated with entire). provisions of section 4 of the Act, that amphibolite, dolomite, or limestone (in The species displays a relatively high the species be removed from the List. VA); gabbro (in NC and VA); diabase (in level of genetic diversity based on Recovery plans provide a roadmap for NC and SC); marble, sandy loams, chert, analyses across the range of populations us and our partners on methods of and amphibolites (in SC and GA); and (Peters et al. 2009, pp. 12–13). There is enhancing conservation and minimizing shallow soils with minor bedrock also significant population genetic threats to listed species, as well as exposures (in GA) (Service 1995, pp. 2– differentiation and a majority of the measurable criteria against which to 3; White 2018, p. 4; GADNR 2019, genetic variance is attributed to evaluate progress towards recovery and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33163

assess the species’ likely future Recovery Criteria native ecosystem (not in gardens or condition. However, they are not The Smooth Coneflower Recovery similar artificial settings) that are in regulatory documents and do not Plan was approved by the Service on permanent conservation ownership and substitute for the determinations and April 18, 1995 (Service 1995, entire). It management; promulgation of regulations required includes recovery criteria intended to 3. Managers have been designated for under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A indicate when threats to the species each protected population; decision to revise the status of a species, have been addressed to the point the 4. Management plans have been or to delist a species, is ultimately based species may no longer meet the developed and implemented for each on an analysis of the best scientific and definition of endangered or threatened protected population; and commercial data available to determine and describes actions or tasks necessary 5. Populations have been maintained whether a species is no longer an to achieve those criteria. at stable or increasing levels for 10 endangered species or a threatened The recovery plan identifies five years. species, regardless of whether that downlisting criteria for smooth information differs from the recovery coneflower (Service 1995, p. 12): Downlisting/Delisting Criteria 1 and 2 plan. 1. Twelve (12) geographically distinct, (Fifteen Protected Self-Sustaining self-sustaining populations are There are many paths to Populations in Native Ecosystem) protected across the species’ range, accomplishing recovery of a species, including populations in at least two Not only have both of the downlisting and recovery may be achieved without counties in VA, two counties in NC, two criteria for protected self-sustaining all of the criteria in a recovery plan counties in SC, and one county in GA; populations been met, but both delisting being fully met. For example, one or 2. At least nine of these populations criteria as well. We currently know of more criteria may be exceeded while must be in areas within the species’ 44 extant populations throughout the other criteria may not yet be native ecosystem (not in gardens or species’ range. Of those 44, 16 accomplished. In that instance, we may similar artificial settings) that are in populations ranked with excellent to determine that the threats are permanent conservation ownership and good viability are found in areas where minimized sufficiently, and that the management; the habitat is under protective status species is robust enough that it no 3. Managers have been designated for (like a National Forest). As of 2019, 33 longer meets the definition of an each protected population; smooth coneflower populations are endangered species or a threatened 4. Management plans have been either on Federal lands or are in species. In other cases, we may discover developed and implemented for each conservation ownership (9 in GA, 5 in new recovery opportunities after having protected population; and NC, 12 in SC, and 7 in VA), 16 of which finalized the recovery plan. Parties 5. Populations have been maintained are ranked A (excellent viability), AB seeking to conserve the species may use at stable or increasing levels for 5 years. (excellent/good viability), or B (good these opportunities instead of methods The recovery plan also identifies the viability) by their respective State identified in the recovery plan. following five delisting criteria for the Natural Heritage Programs (4 in GA, 3 Likewise, we may learn new smooth coneflower (Service 1995, p. in NC, 5 in SC, and 4 in VA). These information about the species after we 12): populations are considered protected finalize the recovery plan. The new 1. Fifteen (15) geographically distinct, because they occur on several National information may change the extent to self-sustaining populations are Forests managed by the USFS, as well which existing criteria are appropriate protected across the species’ range, as lands owned and managed by State for identifying recovery of the species. including populations in at least two agencies, TNC, USACE, USDOE, and The recovery of a species is a dynamic counties in VA, two counties in NC, two DOD. Management plans in existence process requiring adaptive management counties in SC, and one county in GA; for many of these populations are that may, or may not, follow all of the 2. At least nine of these populations detailed below. guidance provided in a recovery plan. must be in areas within the species’ BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33164 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Table 2. State distribution, Heritage program rank, ownership, and availability of management plan for the most resilient, protected populations.

State Population Name Heritage Rank* Ownership Management Plan? GA GA-A AB Federal es GA GA-B B Federal es GA GA-C B Federal

SC SC-B B Federal SC SC-C A Federai State SC SC-D A Federal

VA V A-B A Private VA VA-C AB State no VA V A-D AB State yes * Heritage Ranks: A= excellent viability; AB= excellent/good viability; B = good viabili ,, ' ,:ty ,, n, "'""'' ,.,, ,,. ''"""

With regard to the requirement in AB (six are ranked A, five are ranked (Barnwell and Oconee), and three Criterion 1 that populations be self- AB, and five are ranked B (see Table 2, counties in VA (Franklin, Halifax, and sustaining, we evaluated the resiliency above)). These 16 resilient populations Montgomery). These populations span of each population by looking at the are scattered across the range of the mountain, piedmont, and coastal plain ranks as assigned by the State Natural species, including one county in GA physiographic provinces. Heritage Programs. These 16 protected (Stephens), two counties in NC (Durham populations are ranked either A, B, or and Granville), two counties in SC

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP24JN21.006 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33165

Table 3. Smooth coneflower ranking criteria.

Heritage Rank Viability Number of Plants Size and Type of Habitat Management Regime >5 acres (>2 hectares); open (disturbed) from > 1,000; flowering A Excellent open glade or prairie periodic fires, optimal annually remnant soil conditions mostly open by periodic 100-1,000; most 1-5 acres; open glade or B Good fires or other flowering annually prairie remnant disturbance any size glade or prairie 10-100; 50% or remnant; or isolated C Fair fewer flowering roadside or utility ROW limited annually with remnant glade or prairie flora <10; may not flower remnant glades or isolated D Poor limited annually ROWs

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C

TABLE 4—NUMBER OF PROTECTED POPULATIONS WITH EXCELLENT TO GOOD VIABILITY (A- to B-Ranked) AND HIGH TO MEDIUM RESILIENCY BY STATE [GADNR 2019, unpaginated; NCNHP 2019, unpaginated; SCHTP 2019, unpaginated; VADNH, 2018, unpaginated; White 2018, entire]

NatureServe rank

State A AB B High Medium high Medium resiliency resiliency resiliency

VA ...... 2 2 0 NC ...... 2 0 1 SC ...... 2 2 1 GA ...... 0 1 3

Total Populations ...... 6 5 5

All of these populations occur in the ranked populations have low resiliency, populations in NC are managed by the species’ natural ecosystem, which and sites ranked H or X were not NCDACS (Research Stations Division), includes habitats such as open evaluated for resiliency because plants NCPCP, USACE, and NCBG. In SC, most woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, and have not been found at those sites in of the resilient populations occur on the other habitat that is usually (but not recent years. Sumter National Forest, and four of the always) found on magnesium- and Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 3 five resilient populations are managed calcium-rich soil. For many of the larger (Managers Have Been Designated for by the Sumter National Forest, with one A- and B-ranked populations, the site Each Protected Population) of those sites being co-owned and ranks have not changed significantly managed by SCHTP as a Heritage Trust over recent years. We verified ownership and Preserve. The other resilient population, The remaining 28 extant populations management status of each of the 16 at the Savannah River Site, is owned by are ranked C (fair viability), D (poor resilient, protected populations on the USDOE and managed by the USFS. viability), or E (extant, but their viability Federal, State, and private conservation In VA, the four resilient populations are has not been assessed). A rank of X is lands, to ensure that a land manager managed by the VADNH, USFS (George given to sites considered to be responsible for overseeing the Washington National Forest), and TNC. extirpated, where evidence indicates management of smooth coneflower has that the species no longer exists in that been assigned. The four resilient Site managers have been identified for location. A rank of H is given to sites populations in GA are managed by the all 16 resilient populations identified considered to be historical, where recent USFS (Chattahoochee-Oconee National under Criteria 1 and 2 above; therefore, field information verifying the Forest) with assistance from the Atlanta we consider this criterion to have been continued existence of the population is Botanical Garden and State Botanical met. lacking. We estimated that C-, D-, and E- Garden of Georgia. The three resilient

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP24JN21.007 33166 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 4 plan directs the USFS to maintain or populations VA–A and VA–B have been (Management Plans Implemented) restore at least eight self-sustaining actively monitored since 2014 (Collins Because smooth coneflower requires populations of smooth coneflower et al., (2014, entire; Collins and Huish early to mid-successional habitat, all (USDA Forest Service 2004b, pp. 2–9; 2018, entire). VA–A has been stable resilient populations have received and Roecker 2001, entire), a practice that is since 1977; VA–B has been stable since will require some form of management in effect today. In GA, the USFS 1992. The remaining two resilient in perpetuity to help maintain habitat in adequately uses prescribed fire, populations have been stable since their the right balance so that populations can mechanical clearing, and herbicide discovery in 1992–1993. thrive. Management techniques include application to maintain open, glade-like Land managers in NC have collected the use of prescribed fire, well-timed woodland habitat for smooth coneflower monitoring data on their smooth coneflower populations for many years. mowing, mechanical clearing (including and associated species at resilient The NCPCP and NCNHP have compiled the use of chain saws to cut trees), and populations (GA–A, GA–B, GA–C, and monitoring records going back to 1988 (selectively applied to cut GA–D). In summary, 13 of the 16 most (NCPCP 2018, unpaginated; NCNHP stumps to prevent regrowth). All of resilient (A-, AB-, and B-ranked) smooth 2019, unpaginated; Barnett-Lawrence these management actions have been coneflower populations are included in 1994, entire; Barnett-Lawrence 1995, implemented separately or in management plans, but only six of them entire; Lunsford ca 2003). The NCPCP combination to sustain suitable habitat specifically address smooth coneflower began monitoring some of their for smooth coneflower. Of the 16 management. These plans vary in level populations as early as 1988, and then resilient populations considered in of detail, scope, and time commitment, initiated a more consistent monitoring Criteria 1 and 2, 13 of them can be and several need to be updated with program in 2004, or the year in which considered to be included in improved fire management and invasive a population was discovered (whichever management plans. However, these species management practices. We find was later). Smooth coneflower plants at plans vary in scope and level of that the implementation of regular, NC–B have been monitored since 1989. specificity toward smooth coneflower, dedicated management for the resilient Sites managed by NCBG have been and most plans are outdated. Only six populations is the reason these smooth monitored regularly since 2004. of the plans are specific to the coneflower populations are large, Populations managed by USACE have management of smooth coneflower, healthy, and viable, and contribute been monitored intermittently since while the others address the overall toward the recovery of the species. 1989, and regularly since 2004. In 2018, management of an entire site but However, the Service considers NCPCP summarized the monitoring data include some actions that may be Delisting Criterion 4 for smooth and suggested trends for all NC beneficial to smooth coneflower. Of the coneflower to have been only partially populations as part of their annual six plans that are specific to the met since not all populations have section 6 (of the Act) report. Of the management of smooth coneflower, four management plans, and several of the resilient smooth coneflower populations were developed in the mid-1990s, and existing plans are out of date. The in Durham and Granville Counties, one two were developed in the early 2000s. Service has developed a template (NC–A) has been increasing over the 14- In the past 20 years, we have learned a management plan that land managers year monitoring period, and two (NC–B lot about how to best manage the can use as a guide when developing or and NC–C) are stable (NC–B) over the species with fire, as well as how to updating rare species management 31-year monitoring period (NCPCP manage for invasive species. Many of plans, particularly those that focus on 2018, unpaginated). these management practices need to be smooth coneflower management, and South Carolina sites on the Sumter incorporated into older management we will be working toward getting all National Forest and a State-owned plans. plans established and updated as part of Heritage Preserve have been monitored Management plans exist for three of our ongoing recovery work. since 1990 (White 2018, p. 6, table 1). the four highly resilient smooth White (2018, entire) recently conducted coneflower populations in VA, although Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 5 (Stable a status survey of all of the smooth new information about fire intervals or Increasing Populations for 5 or 10 coneflower sites in SC. His final report could improve management of several Years) compiled all smooth coneflower sites (e.g., VA–A, VA–B, and VA–D) Land managers conduct site visits to monitoring data in SC, and determined (Heffernan et al. 2002, pp. 1–2; SanJule their respective smooth coneflower that since 2006, trends indicated that 2007, p. 5; USDA Forest Service 2014, populations on a regular basis to assess five of the seven Sumter National Forest entire). In NC, the site of the largest population size and health and to populations are increasing, and one is smooth coneflower population (NC–B) determine what management actions, if stable, while the status of one has been actively managed using any, are needed. Monitoring generally population is unknown due to prescribed fire, mowing, and other involves a flowering stem count, which insufficient data. Of the five populations mechanical means as recommended by is a conservative count of how many that are increasing in size, four are species experts (Barnett-Lawrence 1994, plants exist at a site (NCPCP 2018, considered to be resilient (SC–A, SC–B, pp. 18–20, Appendix 10; Barnett- unpaginated; White 2018, entire). SC–C, and SC–D). The first smooth Lawrence 1995, pp. 18–19; NCNHP Virginia smooth coneflower coneflower population at the Savannah 1996, unpaginated), but two of the populations occur on USFS, TNC, and River Site was discovered in 1988, and highly resilient populations lack VADCR lands. These sites have been populations there have been monitored management plans altogether. In SC, all monitored by their respective land periodically since the mid-1990s. The resilient populations occurring on the managers and researchers over the last most recent comprehensive monitoring Sumter National Forest in SC (SC–A, 30 years. Because several of the smooth and inventory was conducted in 2015 SC–B, SC–C, and SC–D) are managed by coneflower preserves in VA are large in and 2017 (Brewer and Prater 2015, p. 4; prescribed fire and mechanical clearing. size, a complete census has not been White 2018, entire). White (2018, p. 11) While the Sumter National Forest conducted every year, although the sites determined that since 2000, two Revised Land and Resource have been generally monitored during Savannah River Site populations are Management Plan is from 2004, this regular management activities. Resilient stable (including resilient population

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33167

SC–E), while two populations are or a significant portion of its range, and expected effects on the species, then possibly declining. To summarize the a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that analyze the cumulative effect of all of trends for the most resilient SC smooth is likely to become an endangered the threats on the species as a whole. coneflower populations, four appear to species within the foreseeable future We also consider the cumulative effect be increasing in size, and one is throughout all or a significant portion of of the threats in light of those actions considered stable, for at least the past 14 its range. The Act requires that we and conditions that will have positive years. determine whether any species is an effects on the species—such as any All four of the most resilient smooth ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened existing regulatory mechanisms or coneflower populations in GA occur on species’’ because of any of the following conservation efforts. The Secretary the Chattahoochee-Oconee National factors: determines whether the species meets Forest in northeastern GA. Biologists (A) The present or threatened the definition of an ‘‘endangered with the USFS, State Botanical Garden destruction, modification, or species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only of Georgia, Atlanta Botanical Garden, curtailment of its habitat or range; after conducting this cumulative GADNR, and GPCA have visited these (B) Overutilization for commercial, analysis and describing the expected populations on a regular basis since the recreational, scientific, or educational effect on the species now and in the species was proposed for listing in 1991 purposes; foreseeable future. and a Statewide status survey was (C) Disease or predation; The Act does not define the term conducted in 2000 (Sullivan 2000, (D) The inadequacy of existing ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in entire). Monitoring data are intermittent, regulatory mechanisms; or the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened but the four resilient populations have (E) Other natural or manmade factors species.’’ Our implementing regulations been considered stable for the past 20 affecting its continued existence. at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a years since the Statewide status survey These factors represent broad framework for evaluating the foreseeable (Suiter 2020, pers. comm.). categories of natural or human-caused future on a case-by-case basis. The term Without more detailed data, it is actions or conditions that could have an foreseeable future extends only so far difficult to determine specific trends, effect on a species’ continued existence. into the future as we can reasonably but based on our analysis of monitoring In evaluating these actions and determine that both the future threats data and recent observations, we conditions, we look for those that may and the species’ responses to those conclude that all of the 16 A-, AB-, and have a negative effect on individuals of threats are likely. In other words, the B-ranked (resilient) protected the species, as well as other actions or foreseeable future is the period of time populations have been stable or conditions that may ameliorate any in which we can make reliable increasing for more than 10 years; negative effects or may have positive predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean therefore, we consider this recovery effects. We consider these same five ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide criterion to have been met. factors in reclassifying a species from a reasonable degree of confidence in the endangered to threatened (50 CFR prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable Summary 424.11(c) and (d)). Even though we are if it is reasonable to depend on it when The implementation of recovery not proposing to delist the species at making decisions. actions for smooth coneflower has this time, we also consider the risk to It is not always possible or necessary significantly reduced the risk of the species if it were not listed under to define foreseeable future as a extinction for the species. As indicated the Act to better understand the species’ particular number of years. Analysis of above, many smooth coneflower future without the protections of the the foreseeable future uses the best populations are protected on public Act. scientific and commercial data available (Federal and State) and private lands, We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in and should consider the timeframes such as TNC preserves in VA. The most general to actions or conditions that are applicable to the relevant threats and to resilient smooth coneflower populations known to or are reasonably likely to the species’ likely responses to those (i.e., those considered contributing to negatively affect individuals of a threats in view of its life-history species’ recovery) are considered stable species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes characteristics. Data that are typically or increasing. Current information actions or conditions that have a direct relevant to assessing the species’ indicates that smooth coneflower is impact on individuals (direct impacts), biological response include species- more abundant, and its range is as well as those that affect individuals specific factors such as lifespan, somewhat larger, than when the species through alteration of their habitat or reproductive rates or productivity, was listed. However, management plans required resources (stressors). The term certain behaviors, and other for all protected populations are lacking, ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either demographic factors. as only six specifically focus on together or separately—the source of the When we listed smooth coneflower as management for smooth coneflower. action or condition or the action or an endangered species (57 FR 46340; Many of the existing management plans condition itself. October 8, 1992), the identified threats are out of date, from the 1990s and early However, the mere identification of (factors) were the absence of natural 2000s, or are not being currently any threat(s) does not necessarily mean disturbance (fire and/or grazing), implemented. that the species meets the statutory highway construction and definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or improvement, gas line installation, and Summary of Factors Affecting the a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining residential and industrial development Species whether a species meets either (Factor A); collecting (Factor B); beetle Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) definition, we must evaluate all damage (Factor C); inadequacy of and its implementing regulations (50 identified threats by considering the existing State regulatory mechanisms CFR part 424) set forth the procedures species’ expected response and the (Factor D); and low genetic variability, for determining whether a species is an effects of the threats—in light of those herbicide use, and possible ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened actions and conditions that will encroachment of exotic species (Factor species.’’ The Act defines an ameliorate the threats—on an E). ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that individual, population, and species The following analysis evaluates these is in danger of extinction throughout all level. We evaluate each threat and its previously identified threats, any other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33168 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

threats currently facing the species, and While we are not aware of any smooth 2018, Appendix 3, entire). Roadside and any other threats that are reasonably coneflower populations that have been utility ROW occurrences are difficult to likely to affect the species in the destroyed due to residential or manage in an early successional state foreseeable future. commercial development since the without harming the smooth coneflower species was listed, this threat remains a plants. For example, woody species Habitat Degradation or Loss Due To concern. Recently, a new subpopulation encroachment has caused the decline of Development and Absence of Natural of smooth coneflower was discovered some smooth coneflower sites that occur Disturbance on a property in Durham County, NC, in ROWs in Durham County, NC. In Smooth coneflower plants require that is slated for development. If a rare some cases, it is possible to manage open, sunny conditions to survive. plant survey had not been conducted lands adjacent to ROW populations by, Without regular disturbance such as and these plants discovered, they would for example, removing woody species to fire, woody shrubs and trees create a have been destroyed by the create suitable habitat for the species, dense canopy that prevents sunlight development of the site (Starke 2019, encouraging the plant to gradually from reaching the forest floor where this pers. comm.). There are likely occupy habitat away from the ROW; herbaceous species occurs. Smooth additional undiscovered populations of however, adjacent, protected land does coneflower is intolerant of dense shade smooth coneflower that are subject to not always exist (Stark 2019, pers. and tends to die out after a few years of destruction. comm.). In the status survey of smooth shady conditions. Development pressure based on coneflower populations in SC, White Smooth coneflower occurrences on urbanization predictions from the (2019, Appendix 3, entire) indicates that private land are vulnerable to habitat SLEUTH urban growth model indicate many populations still face competition loss due to degradation, which results that all of the NC counties, more than by woody species, the presence of from fire suppression or the absence of half of the SC counties, and both of the invasive species, and road ROW other disturbances that maintain the northeastern GA counties of occurrence maintenance. for smooth coneflower will exhibit high habitat in an open state. For example, in The protection of some smooth (greater than 90 percent) growth trends Rockingham County, NC, a small coneflower populations has been over the next 20 to 30 years as part of smooth coneflower population occurred accomplished through active the southern megalopolis (Terando et on private land in an open woodland management and reducing the impacts al., 2014, p. 3; Databasin 2014, entire). between a highway and a railroad track. of development. These efforts are Smooth coneflower populations that The lack of management or fire resulted occur on private lands in these counties critical to the long-term survival of this in the site becoming overgrown, and no will continue to face threats from species. Recognizing the importance of plants have been observed there in development and land conversion in the long-term management of smooth recent years. To encourage smooth foreseeable future. Most of the VA coneflower populations, management coneflower growth, the site needs fire or counties of occurrence are outside the plans that incorporate the use of mechanical disturbance in order to boundaries of the southern megalopolis prescribed fire and/or mechanized remove woody vegetation and open the and the VA urban crescent in the vegetation control have been prepared forest floor to sunlight (NCNHP 2019, eastern part of the State (Databasin for several populations. The Service is unpaginated). 2014, entire). working with many landowners that Development projects, such as Smooth coneflower occurs on have smooth coneflower populations to residential and commercial construction roadsides and utility ROWs throughout complete or update management plans and highway and utility construction the range of the species. These for their populations, as most and maintenance, pose a threat to populations are vulnerable to management plans were first developed smooth coneflower populations by management practices that could in the 1990s and early 2000s and need clearing areas where the species occurs, negatively impact or destroy them. to incorporate new fire management and thereby destroying populations. Further, Herbicides, which are typically harmful invasive species management practices. development in close proximity to to all plants, are often used to manage In 2018, we provided land managers smooth coneflower populations may vegetation along road shoulders and in with a management plan outline to preclude the ability to use fire as a utility ROWs. Herbicide damage can be facilitate the completion of thorough management tool at nearby protected temporary or permanent depending on management plans. Due to greater populations because of the threat of fires the herbicide used and the rate of awareness of the important role of fire escaping the management area and application. Although dormant season in natural systems, prescribed fire and objections to smoke blowing into (winter) mowing is generally not mechanical thinning are now regularly developed areas. For example, a smooth problematic for disturbance-dependent used as management tools on National coneflower population on a small parcel species, as it helps reduce competition Forests, military bases, nature preserves, of USFS land in Habersham County, and maintain sites in an open condition, and other protected lands where smooth GA, has declined over recent years due any mowing that occurs during the coneflower occurs. Land managers such the difficulty in managing fire on a growing season but before plants as the USFS, DOD, USACE, and parcel surrounded by private property. produce mature seeds is considered Savannah River Site, among others, use The lack of management has resulted in harmful because it arrests seed prescribed fire on a 2- to 4-year interval the growth of woody plants that have development and reproductive potential as a management tool to control woody shaded the smooth coneflower plants for that year. Smooth coneflower plants vegetation that might otherwise shade and resulted in this population’s decline growing on a utility ROW in Granville this disturbance-dependent species. For (Radcliffe 2019, pers. comm.). As County, NC, were accidentally sprayed sites that are not managed intentionally residential and commercial with herbicides, killing many plants in for smooth coneflower, management development continue to occur in the this population (NCNHP 2019, practices will likely continue even if the suburbs of Durham, NC, it will become unpaginated). Herbicide damage to species is not listed under the Act, harder to manage some of the adjacent smooth coneflowers has also occurred at primarily because the active smooth coneflower sites with fire the Savannah River Site in GA, but the management benefits the overall habitat (Starke 2019, pers. comm.). population was able to recover (White and meets the management objectives of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33169

the landowner. In general, the coneflower populations, development would be collected for the management benefits the smooth pressure and management challenges pharmaceutical trade was based on coneflower, and without it, the habitat associated with adjacent development observations of over-collection of other conditions for the smooth coneflower continue to pose a threat to unprotected species of Echinacea in the midwestern would likely degrade and we would smooth coneflower populations. for use in medicinal need to reassess the status of the species Populations that occur on private lands products. However, the rule also stated under the Act. For the most part, face threats from development and land that ‘‘devastation’’ of smooth coneflower management plans for many of the conversion. Additionally, protected populations ‘‘for the commercial protected populations of smooth populations adjacent to private land can pharmaceutical trade has not yet been coneflower have been in place for be difficult to manage with prescribed documented’’ (57 FR 46340, October 8, several years, but we do not know if fire due to concerns of neighbors. 1992, p. 46342). Despite the concerns, in management actions would change for Without proper management, woody the 27 years that smooth coneflower has these populations if the species were vegetation could grow up and shade a been listed, the Service has not been not listed. smooth coneflower population to the aware of any incidents of poaching this While development pressure on point of causing decline or eradication species for use in medicinal products. smooth coneflower populations on in less than 10 years. Long-term Since plants in the genus Echinacea are private lands remains, the threat of management is still of concern to the still used for medicinal purposes, the development for the most resilient Service, as several populations are not threat of this activity remains, but the populations is reduced, as they occur specifically considered in management probability is low due to relatively small only on protected lands. As discussed plans nor have commitments to be population sizes compared to other earlier, many smooth coneflower managed into the future. Maintenance species in the genus Echinacea that populations occur on Federal lands, activities pose a threat to smooth grow in midwestern States. Moreover, such as those owned or managed by the coneflower populations that occur on land managers have not reported USFS (George Washington and Jefferson roadside and utility ROWs. Despite poaching as a significant threat to their National Forests in VA, Sumter National agreements with State and Federal smooth coneflower populations because Forest in SC, and Chattahoochee- agencies to conduct ROW maintenance other species of Echinacea are so much Oconee National Forest in GA), USACE in a way that is protective of rare plants, more numerous. (Falls Lake), DOD (Fort Stewart and Fort accidents happen frequently. These sites Various types of academic research Jackson Army Bases), and USDOE are mowed or sprayed with herbicide on have been conducted on smooth (Savannah River Site). These an irregular basis with varying levels of coneflower since the species was listed populations are protected on Federal impacts. in 1992. These studies involved the lands from the threats of ecological collection of leaves, stems, flowers, and succession or destruction due to Collection seeds for laboratory experiments or the development, primarily because Federal When we listed smooth coneflower as collection of voucher specimens for partners are vested in the protection of an endangered species (57 FR 46340; herbaria. The NCBG, State Botanical the species under their management October 8, 1992), there was concern that Garden of Georgia, and Atlanta plans. Some smooth coneflower sites populations might be decimated by Botanical Garden have collected smooth occur on active military bases with collectors interested in exploiting this coneflower seeds over the years to be limited public access, such as Fort species for the horticulture and used in restoration projects in their Jackson and Fort Stewart Army Bases, pharmaceutical trades. We expected that respective States. These botanical providing further protection of these publicity might generate increased gardens follow the Center for Plant populations. Likewise, the Savannah demand for this species in the nursery Conservation guidelines for seed River Site, a former nuclear weapons trade. However, the final listing rule collection and minimize impacts to facility, is closed to the public, and no also mentioned that smooth coneflower, populations, a protocol that is followed development or construction is allowed ‘‘although offered for sale by a few for all species, regardless of whether the in the areas where smooth coneflower native plant nurseries, is not currently species is federally listed or not (Kunz occurs. This USDOE site, designated as a significant component of the 2018, pers. comm.). We evaluated these a National Environmental Research commercial trade in native plants’’ (57 projects before they were initiated and Park, is managed by the USFS. Several FR 46340, October 8, 1992, p. 46341). determined that the level of collection other populations are permanently Currently, we are not aware of any plant was unlikely to pose any potential protected on non-Federal lands by the nurseries that offer this species for sale, threat of overutilization for the species. VADNH, NCDACS, NCPCP, TNC, and likely a result of the prohibitions on We do not find that any of these Mecklenburg County (NC) Parks and collecting endangered plants such as the research or seed banking projects have Recreation Department. smooth coneflower. The only incidents had long-term negative effects on In response to impacts to populations of poaching known to the Service smooth coneflower. If the species were of smooth coneflower in roadside and occurred at one site in GA. Flowers not listed, we do not anticipate a utility ROWs, State departments of were broken off smooth coneflower significant increase in collection transportation and utility companies, plants at one of the roadside sites on pressure, given current lack of poaching such as Duke Energy and Georgia Currahee Mountain, GA (Alley 2018, and low interest in the species. Power, now have management pers. comm.). While there is potential We conclude that collection is no agreements or MOUs with State Natural that specialty nurseries would be longer a threat to the continued Heritage Programs, the USFS, and other interested in selling this species in the existence of smooth coneflower. landowners to protect and manage future, the Service concludes that the smooth coneflower populations on their demand for wild-collected plants is low, Damage Due to Herbivory by Beetles ROWs in a way that is protective of the as other species in the genus Echinacea and Deer species. can be readily propagated using When we listed smooth coneflower as While significant progress has been common horticultural techniques. an endangered species (57 FR 46340; made to address the protection and The concern in the final rule (57 FR October 8, 1992), leaf beetles in the management of many smooth 46340; October 8, 1992) that this species family Chrysomelidae had been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33170 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

observed on smooth coneflower in NC, Smooth coneflower is listed as coneflower populations contained few but their effects were unknown. As ‘‘endangered’’ in NC by the NCPCP and individual plants and there may have mentioned in the 2011 5-year review, a protected by the Plant Protection and been low genetic variability within nonnative longhorn beetle (Hemierana Conservation Act of 1979 (NC General populations, making each remaining marginata; family Cerambycidae) was Statutes, Article 19B, section 106– population important. However, as identified at some smooth coneflower 202.12 et seq.). This law prevents the discussed above under Population populations in NC. This beetle chews removal of State-listed plants from the Structure, we now know that smooth into the flowering stem and causes land without written permission of the coneflower displays a relatively high flowers to die before producing viable landowner. However, it does not level of diversity (Peters et al. 2009, seeds. While this longhorn beetle has regulate destruction or mandate entire). Thus, populations may be able been reported from a few smooth protection. It authorizes the NCPCP to to respond to selection pressures due to coneflower populations in two NC establish nature preserves for protected continued genetic exchange sustained counties, healthy smooth coneflower species and their habitats. To that end, by the outcrossing mating system of the populations remain at these sites. the NCPCP owns and manages several species. tracts of land as preserves for the Therefore, we conclude that the Encroachment From Invasive Species nonnative longhorn beetle is not a threat protection of smooth coneflower and at this time. other associated rare plants. Encroachment by nonnative, invasive plants poses a threat to some smooth White-tailed deer (Odocoileus The Virginia Endangered Plant and coneflower populations, especially virginianus) have been documented Insect Species Act (section 3.2–1000 et those occurrences located on highway browsing on the flower heads of smooth seq. of the Code of Virginia), as ROWs or in utility line easements (such coneflower, but deer herbivory on the amended, provides for the official as power lines). These disturbed leaves has not been observed (Starke listing and recovery of endangered and habitats often include nonnative 2019, pers. comm.). No other herbivory threatened plant and insect species in VA. The VADNH lists smooth species, some of which can become has been observed. Based on the best coneflower as ‘‘threatened’’ in the State invasive. Invasive species change the available information at this time, we (Title 2 of the VA Administrative Code floristic composition of these areas, conclude that neither deer browsing nor at section 5–320–10 (2VAC5–320–10); compete for nutrients, limit germination any other herbivory is causing Townsend 2018, p. 16). Virginia law of seeds (by changing or eliminating that population-level effects to the smooth prohibits the removal and sale or gifting niche/microenvironment), and may coneflower. of State-listed plant species from land shade out smooth coneflower plants State Regulatory Protections other than a person’s own land. The (Kunz 2020, pers. comm.). Another VADCR owns three natural area impact is the use of herbicides on Smooth coneflower is listed as ‘‘State preserves that protect populations of invasive species that has the secondary Endangered’’ by the GADNR. The smooth coneflower. effect of killing smooth coneflower. relevant State law (Rules and The Virginia Endangered Plant and Smooth coneflower populations face Regulations of the State of Georgia, Insect Species Act has not played a threats by nonnative, invasive plants Subject 391–4–10, Protection of major role in safeguarding smooth such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or coneflower populations (Townsend japonica), Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza Unusual Species) prohibits, among 2019, pers. comm.). cuneata), shrubby lespedeza (Lespedeza other things, the transfer of a State-listed Smooth coneflower is on the SCDNR’s bicolor), Japanese stiltgrass plant from one property to another list of rare, threatened, and endangered (Microstegium vimineum), and autumn without the written permission of the species of SC (SCHTP 2018, olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) (White landowner where the species was unpaginated); however, neither the law 2019, entire). found. Violations of this law constitute that authorizes the creation of this list, Climate Change a misdemeanor. In addition, the GA nor any other State law, provides Environmental Policy Act requires the general protection to listed plants in SC. Based on observations of climatic assessment of major proposed agency Populations of smooth coneflower are conditions over a period of impacts on biological resources (2019 more abundant and widely distributed approximately 20 years, there is some GA Code 12–16–1 et seq.). Georgia’s than when it was listed as an biological and historical evidence to Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973 endangered species in 1992. It is also suggest that smooth coneflower is protects rare plants (2019 GA Code 12– listed as endangered or threatened by adapted to persist with the potential 6–170 et seq.). However, the GA three of the four States where it occurs effects of climate change, including Wildflower Preservation Act does not (GA, NC, and VA). However, protection more frequent droughts and increased protect plants on private property. of this and other State-listed species on average maximum temperatures. Nearly all known smooth coneflower private land is challenging. State Smooth coneflower is typically found in populations in GA occur on Federal prohibitions against taking are difficult open, sunny areas with little to no shade lands such as the Chattahoochee- to enforce and do not cover adverse and high sun exposure. These sites often Oconee National Forest and DOD alterations of habitats such as exclusion occur in fairly xeric conditions such as (Department of the Army) installations of fire. As previously mentioned in this open woods, glades, barrens, roadsides, such as Fort Stewart (Moffett 2019, pers. proposed rule, the majority of the clear cuts, dry limestone bluffs, and comm.). As discussed above (see highest ranked populations (Ranks A, road and power line ROWs. Even Habitat Degradation or Loss due to AB, and B) occur on protected Federal though smooth coneflower populations Development and Absence of Natural lands and other conservation properties. in NC experienced severe droughts in Disturbance), Federal lands provide 2007 and 2010, dry conditions did not some protection to smooth coneflower Genetics negatively influence flower production populations by limiting public access The final rule listing smooth (NCPCP 2018, entire). All natural and reducing the threat of development, coneflower as an endangered species (57 populations in NC have survived as well as ensuring agency-specific FR 46340; October 8, 1992) stated that, through drought years and recovered. management plans. at that time, the remaining smooth Despite some drought years, smooth

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33171

coneflower populations in SC have means that habitats are unlikely to compared to those that occur, for generally experienced positive trends maintain their current levels of moisture example, in the coastal plain. over the last 20 years, indicating that the and will become slightly drier. In summary, while smooth species is not negatively affected by To evaluate the vulnerability of coneflower is considered moderately droughts (White 2018, entire). Smooth smooth coneflower to the effects of vulnerable to range contraction from coneflower plants have sustained climate change, we also used future climate change, the predicted populations for years on dry clay road NatureServe’s Climate Change temperature and precipitation changes cuts (White 2019, pers. comm.). Vulnerability Index (CCVI) (Young et al. for both moderate (RCP 4.5) and extreme Adaptations to survive in sunny areas 2015, entire), a climate change model (RCP 8.5) scenarios indicate only likely benefit this species during that uses downscaled climate slightly hotter and drier conditions by drought conditions. Further, the predictions from tools such as Climate 2074. Therefore, climate change is not perennial growth habitat and Wizard (Girvetz et al. 2009, entire) and likely a major factor affecting the underground rhizomes likely allow combines these with readily available species’ resiliency into the foreseeable smooth coneflower to be more resilient information about a species’ natural future. to drought conditions. history, distribution, and landscape Stochastic Events To generate future climate projections circumstances to predict whether it will Stochastic events (environmental and across the range of smooth coneflower, likely suffer a range contraction and/or genetic stochasticity) could affect we used the National Climate Change population reductions due to the effects populations of smooth coneflower. Viewer (NCCV), a tool developed by the of climate change. The tool gauges 20 Environmental stochasticity refers to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that scientifically documented factors and variation in recruitment and mortality allows the user to view climate indicators of these components, as well rates in response to weather, disease, projections at the State, county, and as documented responses to climate competition, predation, or other factors watershed level (Alder and Hostetler change where they exist. The CCVI external to the population. While 2017, entire;). The model simulates the generated a vulnerability rating of response of the water balance to changes drought (below average rainfall over a ‘‘moderately vulnerable’’ for smooth time period greater than the historical in temperature and precipitation in the coneflower, suggesting that the species’ climate models (30 separate models range of variability) and the timing and abundance and/or range extent is likely amount of rainfall are likely important developed by the National Aeronautics to decrease by 2050. Factors influencing and Space Administration). The NCCV factors in seed germination and the species’ moderate vulnerability establishment of smooth coneflower, we also provides access to comprehensive include its restricted dispersal ability, summary reports for States, counties, do not have any evidence of how these anthropogenic barriers, predicted land factors directly affect this species. and watersheds. use changes, dependence on a specific Using the NCCV and using Smooth coneflower soil seed banks are disturbance regime (often fire), and Representative Concentration Pathways low to nonexistent, which could restriction to uncommon geological (RCP) greenhouse gas emission exacerbate the potential effects of scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5) as possible features. stochastic events because the species outcomes, we calculated projected Although the model suggested that does not have the seed bank to rely on annual mean changes for maximum air smooth coneflower is sensitive to for future recruitment (Walker 2009, p. temperature and precipitation for the climate change and could be adversely 12); however, we have not yet observed period 2050–2074 in VA, NC, SC, and affected in future years, there are a that the low seedbank has affected GA. Based on these results, all four number of weaknesses associated with resilient populations. With regard to States within the range of smooth the CCVI (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, genetic stochasticity, smooth coneflower coneflower will be subjected to higher pp. 16–17). The specific weaknesses populations have significant levels of maximum air temperatures (annual identified are: (1) The CCVI is weighted population diversity and exhibit mean increase of 1.9–2.2 degrees Celsius too heavily towards direct exposure to substantial population genetic (°C) (3.4–4.0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) for climate change (projected changes to differentiation (Peters et al. 2009, p. 12) RCP 4.5; 2.7–3.2 °C (4.9–5.8 °F) for RCP future temperature and precipitation (see Genetics, above). We cannot 8.5) and slightly higher precipitation conditions that have high levels of conclude that either environmental or (annual mean increase of 0.57–0.74 uncertainties); (2) some important plant genetic stochasticity poses a threat to centimeters (cm)/month (mo) (0.22–0.3 attributes are missing (mating system the smooth coneflower. inches (in)/mo) for RCP 4.5; 0.51–0.76 and pollinator specificity); (3) it is very Cumulative Effects cm/mo (0.2–0.3 in/mo) for RCP 8.5) difficult to complete scoring for a given relative to 1981–2010 (Alder and species because some information is The cumulative effects of encroaching Hostetler 2017, entire). In general, simply lacking; and (4) some scoring development adjacent to protected sites across the species’ range for both RCP guidelines are too simplistic (Anacker could affect the smooth coneflower, and 4.5 and 8.5, runoff is expected to remain and Leidholm 2012, pp. 16–17). the management challenges that at a similar levels or decrease slightly; Anacker and Leidholm (2012, pp. 12– accompany that threat will continue to soil water storage is expected to 16) considered topographic complexity affect the species into the future. decrease slightly, and evaporative to be a potential complementary factor Increasing development adjacent to deficit will increase slightly (Alder and in assessing vulnerability to climate protected sites will likely lead to Hostetler 2017, entire). Because the change. Within smooth coneflower’s decreases in managing with prescribed average annual increase in precipitation range, the Appalachian and Allegheny burning in the future, which may or is predicted to be only slightly higher, mountains have been predicted to have may not be replaced with adequate and the increased evaporative deficit and the slightly higher temperature changes as a appropriate habitat management by loss in runoff and soil storage is result of climate change than the other means that are more expensive primarily a result of higher maximum piedmont and coastal plain counties, so than managing with fire. The type of and minimum air temperatures. Despite smooth coneflower populations in the development also factors into the slight increase in predicted mountains on the north end of the range management ability and flexibility, with precipitation, the coincident warming may be more vulnerable when major roads and places with vulnerable

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33172 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

populations weighing more heavily on protected populations, we expect find that disease and predation are not the decision of if/when to burn than management of the threat of fire currently threats to this species, and we other types of development. suppression to continue as part of do not expect them to be threats in the ongoing management well into the foreseeable future. Determination of Smooth Coneflower’s future. However, uncertainty regarding The existing regulatory mechanisms Status effects of a changing climate increases (Factor D) are not adequate to protect As discussed above in Summary of after 20–30 years, making reliable the smooth coneflower from Factors Affecting the Species, section 4 predictions after this time period development and habitat succession. of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) defines difficult. Therefore, we used the 20–30 Populations of smooth coneflower on ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that year timeframe in developing our USFS, DOD, and USDOE lands receive is in danger of extinction throughout all projections of future conditions for some protection by management or a significant portion of its range, and smooth coneflower. protocols applicable to those lands. ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is Some populations in NC, SC, and VA likely to become an endangered species Status Throughout All of Its Range occur on State-owned lands managed by within the foreseeable future throughout After evaluating threats to the species their respective Natural Heritage all or a significant portion of its range. and assessing the cumulative effect of Programs or the NCDACS as ‘‘dedicated The Act requires that we determine the threats under the section 4(a)(1) nature preserves.’’ However, while NC, whether a species meets the definition factors, we find that smooth coneflower GA, and VA have plant protection laws, of endangered species or threatened continues to face threats from habitat they only regulate the collection and species because of any of the following succession (resulting from lack of fire or trade of listed species and do not factors: (A) The present or threatened other management), particularly in areas prohibit the destruction of populations destruction, modification, or where development is increasing near on private lands or otherwise mandate curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) existing populations, thus making fire protection. There is no State law overutilization for commercial, management difficult. In addition, protecting rare plants in SC. recreational, scientific, or educational development pressure, especially for Other natural and manmade factors purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) unprotected populations on private affecting the continued existence (Factor the inadequacy of existing regulatory lands, remains a concern. We are E) of smooth coneflower identified at mechanisms; or (E) other natural or concerned about long-term management the time of listing (1992) include low manmade factors affecting its continued because several populations do not have genetic variability within populations, existence. management plans or the management encroachment by exotic species, plans no longer reflect the best available herbicide use, and the importance of Foreseeable Future science. Even populations occurring on periodic disturbance (addressed above As also described above, the term protected land adjacent to private lands under Factor A). Of these threats, ‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far are becoming increasingly more difficult encroachment by exotic (invasive) into the future as the Service can to manage due to neighbors’ concerns species, and use of herbicides to manage reasonably determine that both the about nearby fires and smoke pollution. those exotic species, continue to be a future threats and the species’ responses Even with agreements in place to threat to smooth coneflower to those threats are likely. Data that are protect them, roadside and utility ROW populations. Since listing, climate typically relevant to assessing the populations still face threats from change is another factor that has been species’ biological response include maintenance activities, especially identified. However, genetic studies, species-specific factors such as lifespan, herbicide spraying and mowing. The described in detail above under reproductive rates or productivity, decline or disappearance of some Population Structure, indicate that certain behaviors, and other smooth coneflower populations across smooth coneflower displays a relatively demographic factors. the range of the species has been high level of diversity and that We considered a foreseeable future of documented in Natural Heritage populations may be able to respond to 20–30 years as the period of time over Program records and is attributed to selection pressures and maintain which we are able to reliably predict the habitat loss. Habitat loss (Factor A) is viability due to continued genetic magnitude of threats, including a considered to be a moderate threat exchange sustained by the outcrossing changing climate, and the effects on currently and is expected to continue in mating system of the species. Based on smooth coneflower. Threats that are the foreseeable future. the redundancy and representation of reasonably likely to affect the species in At the time of listing in 1992, there the species, we conclude that potential the foreseeable future include habitat was concern that smooth coneflower impacts associated with stochastic loss due to development pressure on plants would be collected for the events are not a threat to smooth private lands and habitat succession due horticulture or pharmaceutical trade coneflower. Despite our uncertainty to lack of adequate management, (Factor B). However, we do not find that about the species’ vulnerability to including fire suppression near or on collecting is currently a threat to this climate change, we do not consider private lands and accidental mowing species or is expected to be in the climate change to be a threat to smooth and herbicide application from roadside foreseeable future. coneflower based on the current maintenance activities. Thus, all Disease and predation (Factor C) were resiliency of the species and its populations of smooth coneflower that not identified as a significant threat to demonstrated tolerance to periods of are not actively managed or formally smooth coneflower when the species drought. protected remain at risk of extirpation in was listed in 1992. Natural herbivory by Further, since the species’ 1992 listing the future. A 20–30 year timeframe is insects and mammals may occur, but it under the Act, smooth coneflower the expected period over which is a considered a low-magnitude threat representation has increased with the implementation of management because the species has sustained discovery of new occurrences practices (such as prescribed fire) by populations and there is no indication throughout the range of the species, conservation partners and tracking of that the magnitude of an undetermined especially with the new sites in the the species’ response to managed habitat natural predation pressure significantly coastal plain of GA and SC. Our improvement is reliable. For formally affects smooth coneflower survival. We understanding of the species’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33173

redundancy has improved as a result of likely to become so in the foreseeable status from its rangewide status. increased survey efforts; the species is future throughout all or a significant Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to now known from 44 populations (up portion of its range. The court in Center determine whether any portion of the from 21 populations at the time of for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 species’ range is significant. This is listing), 16 of which currently have high WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) consistent with the courts’ holdings in to medium resiliency. The number of (Center for Biological Diversity), vacated Desert Survivors v. Department of the resilient smooth coneflower populations the aspect of our Final Policy on Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 has improved the species’ redundancy. Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), The species’ representation is good, Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered and Center for Biological Diversity v. given the distribution of resilient Species Act’s Definitions of Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. populations over a four-State area. We ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened Ariz. 2017). believe that this improvement in the Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) Determination of Status species’ viability demonstrates that it is that provided that the Service and the not currently in danger of extinction National Marine Fisheries Service do Our review of the best available despite the persistence of the above- not undertake an analysis of significant scientific and commercial information described threats. portions of a species’ range if the indicates that the smooth coneflower In conclusion, based on our species warrants listing as threatened meets the Act’s definition of a assessment of the best available throughout all of its range. Therefore, threatened species. Therefore, we scientific and commercial information, we proceed to evaluating whether the propose to reclassify the smooth we find that while smooth coneflower species is endangered in a significant coneflower from an endangered species populations continue to face threats portion of its range—that is, whether to a threatened species in accordance from habitat loss and invasive species, there is any portion of the species’ range with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the and existing regulatory mechanisms are for which both (1) the portion is Act. currently inadequate to protect some significant; and (2) the species is in Available Conservation Measures smooth coneflower populations from danger of extinction in that portion. development and habitat succession; Depending on the rule, it might be Conservation measures provided to however, there are currently 16 more efficient for us to address the species listed as endangered or protected, resilient smooth coneflower ‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ threatened under the Act include populations. Therefore, the species no question first. Regardless of which recognition, recovery actions, longer meets the Act’s definition of an question we address first, if we reach a requirements for Federal protection, and endangered species, meaning it is not negative answer with respect to the first prohibitions against certain practices. currently in danger of extinction question, we do not need to evaluate the The Act encourages cooperation with throughout its range. other question for that portion of the the States and requires that recovery We, therefore, proceed with species’ range. actions be implemented for all listed determining whether smooth In undertaking this analysis for the species. The protections required by coneflower meets the Act’s definition of smooth coneflower, we choose to Federal agencies and the prohibitions a threatened species. The ongoing address the status question first—we against certain activities are discussed, threats of habitat loss, fragmentation, consider information pertaining to the in part, below. habitat succession, and encroachment of geographic distribution of both the The primary purpose of the Act is the nonnative and invasive species are of species and the threats that the species conservation of endangered and sufficient imminence, scope, or faces to identify any portions of the threatened species and the ecosystems magnitude to affect the resiliency of range where the species is endangered. upon which they depend. The ultimate smooth coneflower populations for the For smooth coneflower, we goal of such conservation efforts is the foreseeable future. The species relies on considered whether the threats are recovery of these listed species, so that management such as prescribed fire and geographically concentrated in any they no longer need the protective mechanical clearing to maintain its portion of the species’ range at a measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of habitat. However, management plans for biologically meaningful scale. We the Act requires the Service to develop most of the areas in which the species examined the following threats: Habitat and implement recovery plans for the is protected are outdated, and it is succession, habitat loss, and invasive conservation of endangered and uncertain how those plans are even species, as well as the cumulative threatened species. The recovery being implemented. Threatened effects of these threats. Smooth planning process involves the development near protected sites could coneflower populations on private lands identification of actions that are impede management of those sites with face the threat of development. The necessary to halt or reverse the species’ fire. Adequate management decline or disappearance of some decline by addressing the threats to its commitments would need to be secured smooth coneflower populations across survival and recovery. The goal of this for more populations before the species the range of the species has been process is to restore listed species to a could be delisted. Thus, after assessing documented in Natural Heritage point where they are secure, self- the best available information, we Program records and is attributed to sustaining, and functioning components conclude that although smooth habitat loss. Further, encroachment by of their ecosystem. coneflower is not currently in danger of invasive species, which is most Revisions of the plan may be done to extinction, it is likely to become in prevalent in disturbed areas, such as address continuing or new threats to the danger of extinction within the highway ROWs or utility corridors, species, as new substantive information foreseeable throughout all of its range. occurs throughout the smooth becomes available. The recovery plan coneflower’s range. We found no identifies site-specific management Status Throughout a Significant Portion concentration of threats in any portion actions that set a trigger for review of of Its Range of the smooth coneflower’s range at a the five factors that control whether a Under the Act and our implementing biologically meaningful scale. Thus, species may be downlisted or delisted, regulations, a species may warrant there are no portions of the species’ and methods for monitoring recovery listing if it is in danger of extinction or range where the species has a different progress. Recovery plans also establish

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33174 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

a framework for agencies to coordinate (1988)). Conservation is defined in the advisable to provide for the their recovery efforts and provide Act to mean the use of all methods and conservation of the smooth coneflower. estimates of the cost of implementing procedures which are necessary to bring As discussed above under Summary recovery tasks. All planning documents any endangered species or threatened of Factors Affecting the Species, we can be found on our website (http:// species to the point at which the have concluded that the smooth www.fws.gov/endangered) or from our measures provided pursuant to the Act coneflower is likely to become in danger Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office are no longer necessary. Additionally, of extinction within the foreseeable (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). the second sentence of section 4(d) of future primarily due to the present or Implementation of recovery actions the Act states that the Secretary may by threatened destruction, modification, or generally requires the participation of a regulation prohibit with respect to any curtailment of its habitat or range broad range of partners, including other threatened species any act prohibited (specifically due to fire suppression and Federal agencies, States, Tribes, under section 9(a)(1) of the Act, in the subsequent ecological succession and nongovernmental organizations, case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2) development, and encroachment from businesses, and private landowners. of the Act, in the case of plants. Thus, invasive species). Examples of recovery actions include the combination of the two sentences of Specifically, a number of activities habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of section 4(d) provides the Secretary with have the potential to affect the smooth native vegetation), research, propagation wide latitude of discretion to select and coneflower, including land clearing for and reintroduction, and outreach and promulgate appropriate regulations development, fire suppression, and education. The recovery of many listed tailored to the specific conservation herbicide application to highway and species cannot be accomplished solely needs of the threatened species. The utility ROWs. Regulating these on Federal lands because their range second sentence grants particularly activities, including prohibiting those may occur primarily or solely on non- broad discretion to the Service when activities related to removing, damaging, Federal lands (like TNC preserves and adopting the prohibitions under section or destroying smooth coneflowers, county owned nature preserves). To 9 of the Act. would provide for conservation of the achieve recovery of these species The courts have recognized the extent species by helping to preserve requires cooperative conservation efforts of the Secretary’s discretion under this remaining populations, slowing their on private, State, and Tribal lands standard to develop rules that are rate of potential decline, and decreasing where appropriate. Funding for recovery appropriate for the conservation of a synergistic, negative effects from other actions could become available from a species. For example, courts have stressors. Prohibiting import and export, variety of sources, including Federal upheld rules developed under section transportation, and commerce of smooth budgets, State programs, and cost share 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency coneflower limits unauthorized grants from non-Federal landowners, authority where they prohibited take of propagation and distribution, which the academic community, and threatened wildlife or include a limited prevents potential hybridization with nongovernmental organizations. We taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley other species of Echinacea and invite you to submit any new Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. subsequent inbreeding depression. As a information on this species whenever it Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); whole, the proposed 4(d) rule would help in the efforts to recover the species. becomes available (see FOR FURTHER Washington Environmental Council v. The provisions of this proposed 4(d) INFORMATION CONTACT). National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 rule would promote conservation of Section 7(a) requires Federal agencies U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. smooth coneflower by encouraging to evaluate their actions with respect to 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) management of the landscape in ways any species that is listed as an rules that do not address all of the that meet both land management endangered or threatened species. threats a species faces (see State of considerations and the conservation Regulations implementing this Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th needs of the smooth coneflower, interagency cooperation provision of the Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative specifically by providing exceptions for Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. history when the Act was initially incidental take for State agency Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the conservation actions, scientific permits Federal agencies to ensure that activities threatened list, the Secretary has an for research, and use of cultivated-origin they authorize, fund, or carry out are not almost infinite number of options seeds for education. The provisions of likely to jeopardize the continued available to him with regard to the this proposed rule are one of many tools existence of the species. If a Federal permitted activities for those species. He that we would use to promote the action may affect a listed species, the may, for example, permit taking, but not conservation of the smooth coneflower. responsible Federal agency must enter importation of such species, or he may choose to forbid both taking and This proposed 4(d) rule would apply into consultation with the Service. importation but allow the transportation only if and when we make final the Proposed Rule Under Section 4(d) of of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, reclassification of the smooth the Act 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). coneflower as a threatened species. Exercising this authority under Background section 4(d), we have developed a Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule Section 4(d) of the Act contains two proposed rule that is designed to This proposed 4(d) rule would sentences. The first sentence states that address smooth coneflower’s specific provide for the conservation of the the Secretary shall issue such threats and conservation needs. smooth coneflower by prohibiting the regulations as he deems necessary and Although the statute does not require following activities, except as otherwise advisable to provide for the the Service to make a ‘‘necessary and authorized or permitted: Importing or conservation of species listed as advisable’’ finding with respect to the exporting; certain acts related to threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has adoption of specific prohibitions under removing, damaging, and destroying; noted that statutory language like section 9, we find that this rule as a delivering, receiving, carrying, ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates whole satisfies the requirement in transporting, or shipping in interstate or a large degree of deference to the agency section 4(d) of the Act to issue foreign commerce in the course of (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 regulations deemed necessary and commercial activity; and selling or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33175

offering for sale in interstate or foreign seeds of cultivated plants, which (USFWS 1995). Highest priority actions commerce. generally enhance the propagation of (also recommended as future actions in We may issue permits to carry out the species, and therefore would satisfy our 5-year review (USFWS 2011, pp. otherwise prohibited activities, permit requirements under the Act. We 13–14)) include: (1) Continue to work including those described above, intend to monitor the interstate and with partners to strengthen management involving threatened plants under foreign commerce and the import and plans for protected smooth coneflower certain circumstances. Regulations export of these specimens in a manner populations so they will better governing permits are codified at 50 that will not inhibit such activities, contribute to the recovery of the species; CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened providing the activities do not represent (2) continue conducting comprehensive plants, a permit may be issued for the a threat to the survival of the species in surveys for this species within following purposes: For scientific the wild. In this regard, seeds of traditional and non-traditional sites to purposes, to enhance propagation or cultivated specimens would not be determine more details on abundance survival, for economic hardship, for regulated provided that a statement that and distribution of the species; (3) botanical or horticultural exhibition, for the seeds are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ develop stronger monitoring protocols educational purposes, or for other accompanies the seeds or their and continue long-term monitoring that purposes consistent with the purposes container (e.g., the seeds could be will demonstrate stability of of the Act. Additional statutory moved across State lines or between populations; (4) promote conservation exemptions from the prohibitions are territories for purposes of seed banking agreements with private landowners to found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. or use for outplanting without protect and enhance existing We recognize the special and unique additional regulations). populations; (5) work closely with relationship with our State natural Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule landowners to ensure the protection of resource agency partners in contributing would change in any way the recovery the species and management of its to conservation of listed species. State planning provisions of section 4(f) of the habitat on private lands; (6) develop agencies often possess scientific data Act, the consultation requirements propagation and outplanting protocols and valuable expertise on the status and under section 7 of the Act, or our ability according to Center for Plant distribution of endangered, threatened, to enter into partnerships for the Conservation guidelines; and (7) and candidate species of wildlife and management and protection of smooth continue to conduct research on general plants. State agencies, because of their coneflower. However, interagency biology of the species including authorities and their close working cooperation may be further streamlined genetics, life history, and reproductive relationships with local governments through planned programmatic biology (breeding systems, seed and landowners, are in a unique consultations for the species between us production, and seedling survivorship). position to assist us in implementing all and other Federal agencies, where aspects of the Act. In this regard, section appropriate. We ask the public, Required Determinations 6 of the Act provides that we shall particularly State agencies and other Clarity of the Rule cooperate to the maximum extent interested stakeholders that may be practicable with the States in carrying affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to We are required by Executive Orders out programs authorized by the Act. provide comments and suggestions 12866 and 12988 and by the Therefore, as set forth at 50 CFR regarding additional guidance and Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 17.71(b) and proposed as an exception methods that we could provide or use, 1998, to write all rules in plain to the prohibitions in this 4(d) rule, any respectively, to streamline the language. This means that each rule we employee or agent of the Service or of implementation of this proposed 4(d) publish must: a State conservation agency that is rule (see Information Requested, above). (1) Be logically organized; operating a conservation program (2) Use the active voice to address pursuant to the terms of a cooperative Effects of This Proposed Rule readers directly; agreement with the Service in This proposed rule, if made final, (3) Use clear language rather than accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to jargon; who is designated by that agency for reclassify the smooth coneflower from (4) Be divided into short sections and such purposes, would be allowed, when endangered to threatened on the Federal sentences; and acting in the course of official duties, to List of Endangered and Threatened (5) Use lists and tables wherever remove and reduce to possession from Plants. It would also recognize that this possible. areas under Federal smooth coneflowers plant is no longer in danger of If you feel that we have not met these that are covered by an approved extinction throughout all or a significant requirements, send us comments by one cooperative agreement to carry out portion of its range. This reclassification of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To conservation programs. In addition, in does not significantly change the better help us revise the rule, your accordance with 50 CFR 17.61(c)(2) protections afforded to this species comments should be as specific as through (4), any employee or agent of under the Act. The prohibitions and possible. For example, you should tell the Service, any other Federal land conservation measures provided by the us the numbers of the sections or management agency, or a State Act, particularly through sections 7 and paragraphs that are unclearly written, conservation agency, who is designated 9, would continue to apply to the which sections or sentences are too by that agency for such purposes, would smooth coneflower. Federal agencies are long, the sections where you feel lists or be able to, when acting in the course of required to consult with the Service tables would be useful, etc. official duties, remove and reduce to under section 7 of the Act in the event National Environmental Policy Act (42 possession endangered plants from that activities they authorize, fund, or U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) areas under Federal jurisdiction without carry out may affect the smooth a permit to care for a damaged or coneflower. We have determined that diseased specimen, or to salvage or As applicable, recovery actions environmental assessments and dispose of a dead specimen. directed at the smooth coneflower will environmental impact statements, as We also recognize the beneficial and continue to be implemented as outlined defined under the authority of the educational aspects of activities with in the recovery plan for this plant National Environmental Policy Act,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33176 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

need not be prepared in connection and upon request from the Raleigh recordkeeping requirements, with determining and implementing a Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR Transportation. species’ listing status under the FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Endangered Species Act. We published Proposed Regulation Promulgation Authors a notice outlining our reasons for this Accordingly, we propose to amend The primary authors of this document determination in the Federal Register part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). are staff members of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Government-to-Government Team and the Raleigh Ecological as set forth below: Relationship With Tribes Services Field Office. PART 17—ENDANGERED AND In accordance with the President’s Signing Authority THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS memorandum of April 29, 1994, The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations Service, approved this document and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 with Native American Tribal authorized the undersigned to sign and continues to read as follows: Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive submit the document to the Office of the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– Order 13175, and the Department of the Federal Register for publication Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise electronically as an official document of noted. readily acknowledge our responsibility the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. to communicate meaningfully with Martha Williams, Principal Deputy ■ 2. Amend § 17.12, in paragraph (h), by recognized Federal Tribes on a Director Exercising the Delegated government-to-government basis. We revising the entry ‘‘Echinacea laevigata’’ Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and under FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of have determined that there are no Tribal Wildlife Service, approved this interests affected by this proposal. Endangered and Threatened Plants to document on June 14, 2021, for read as follows: References Cited publication. § 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. A complete list of references cited in List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 * * * * * this rulemaking is available on the Endangered and threatened species, internet at http://www.regulations.gov Exports, Imports, Reporting and (h) * * *

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

FLOWERING PLANTS

******* Echinacea laevigata ...... Smooth coneflower ...... Wherever found ...... T 57 FR 46340, 10/8/1992; [Federal Reg- ister citation of final rule]; 50 CFR 17.73(f).4d

*******

■ 3. Add § 17.73 to read as follows: (iii) Maliciously damage or destroy (ii) Conduct activities authorized by a the species on any areas under Federal permit issued under § 17.62 prior to the § 17.73 Special rules—flowering plants. jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or effective date of the final rule for the (a)–(e) [Reserved]. damage or destroy the species on any duration of the permit. (f) Echinacea laevigata (smooth other area in knowing violation of any (iii) Remove and reduce to possession coneflower)—(1) Prohibitions. The State law or regulation or in the course from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as following prohibitions that apply to of any violation of a State criminal set forth at § 17.61(c)(2) through (4) for endangered plants also apply to trespass law, as set forth at section endangered plants and § 17.71(b). Echinacea laevigata. Except as provided 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act. under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, it (iv) Engage in interstate or foreign (iv) Engage in any act prohibited is unlawful for any person subject to the commerce in the course of commercial under paragraph (f)(1) of this section jurisdiction of the United States to activity, as set forth at § 17.61(d) for with seeds of cultivated specimens, commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit endangered plants. provided that a statement that the seeds another to commit, or cause to be (v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ accompanies committed, any of the following acts in at § 17.61(e) for endangered plants. the seeds or their container. regard to this species: (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In Madonna Baucum, (i) Import or export, as set forth at regard to Echinacea laevigata, you may: Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of § 17.61(b) for endangered plants. (i) Conduct activities, including Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and (ii) Remove and reduce to possession activities prohibited under paragraph Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as (f)(1) of this section, if they are U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. set forth at § 17.61(c)(1) for endangered authorized by a permit issued in [FR Doc. 2021–12951 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] plants. accordance with the provisions set forth BILLING CODE 4333–15–P at § 17.72.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS