DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 119/Thursday, June 24, 2021 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 Plants; 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 (Echinacea laevigata) under locate this document. You may submit be made by issuing a rulemaking. the Endangered Species 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,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Analysis of the Pollinators of Echinacea Purpurea in Relation to Their Perceived Efficiency and Color Preferences
    University of Tennessee at Chattanooga UTC Scholar Student Research, Creative Works, and Honors Theses Publications 5-2021 An analysis of the pollinators of Echinacea purpurea in relation to their perceived efficiency and color efpr erences Carmen Black University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.utc.edu/honors-theses Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Black, Carmen, "An analysis of the pollinators of Echinacea purpurea in relation to their perceived efficiency and color efpr erences" (2021). Honors Theses. This Theses is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research, Creative Works, and Publications at UTC Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of UTC Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Analysis of the Pollinators of Echinacea purpurea in Relation to their Perceived Efficiency and Color Preferences Departmental Honors Thesis The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Department of Biology, Geology, and Environmental Sciences Examination Date: April 6th Dr. Stylianos Chatzimanolis Dr. Joey Shaw Professor of Biology Professor of Biology Thesis Director Department Examiner Dr. Elise Chapman Lecturer of Biology Department Examiner 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Abstract …………..…………………….………………………… 3 II. Introduction…………..………………….……………………....... 5 III. Materials and Methods…………...………………………………. 11 IV. Results…………..…………………….………………………….. 16 A. List of Figures…………...……………………………….. 21 V. Discussion…………..………….…………………………...…… 28 VI. Acknowledgements………….……………….………...………… 38 VII. Works Cited ……………………………………...……….……… 39 VIII. Appendices……………………………………………………….. 43 3 ABSTRACT This study aimed to better understand how insects interacted with species of Echinacea in Tennessee and specifically their preference to floral color. Based on previous studies I expected the main visitors to be composed of various bees, beetles and butterflies.
    [Show full text]
  • USFWS 2011 Coneflower
    Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office Raleigh, North Carolina 5-YEAR REVIEW Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete the review The information used to prepare this report was gathered from peer reviewed scientific publications, a status survey by Gaddy (1991), current data from the Georgia Natural Heritage Program (GANHP), North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), South Carolina Heritage Trust Program (SCHTP), and Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VANHP), correspondence from botanists and land managers who are knowledgeable of the species and personal field observations. The review was completed by the lead recovery biologist for Echinacea laevigata in the Raleigh, North Carolina Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The recommendations resulting from this review are the result of thoroughly assessing the best available information on Echinacea laevigata. Comments and suggestions regarding the review were received from peer reviewers within and outside the Service. A detailed summary of the peer review process is provided in Appendix A. No part of the review was contracted to an outside party. Public notice of this review was provided in the Federal Register on July 29, 2008, and a 60-day public comment period was opened (73 FR 43947). No comments were received during the comment period; however, the Service received population
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Xeric Hardpan Forest (Southern Prairie Barren Subtype)
    XERIC HARDPAN FOREST (SOUTHERN PRAIRIE BARREN SUBTYPE) Concept: Xeric Hardpan Forests are woodlands with open vegetation because of restricted rooting depth caused by dense or shrink-swell clay. The Southern Prairie Barren Subtype covers examples on gabbro-derived soils in the area of Mecklenburg County and adjacent South Carolina, which contain a diverse and distinctive herbaceous flora of prairie affinities. No well-developed remnants are known in North Carolina but flora in the area suggests they were once locally extensive.They generally have a higher species richness than the Basic Hardpan Subtype. The suite of prairie herbs is different for this region than for the range of the Northern Prairie Barren Subtype, apparently for biogeographic reasons. Distinguishing Features: The Southern Prairie Barren Subtype is distinguished from the closely related Northern Prairie Barren Subtype by a suite of different species. Species characteristic of the Northern and absent in the Southern include Echinacea laevigata, Oligoneuron album, Lithospermum canescens, and Baptisia australis var. aberrans. Species characteristic of the Southern and absent in the Northern include Symphyotrichum georgianum var. georgianum and Helianthus schweinitzii. Both subtypes are distinguished from the closely related Basic Hardpan Subtype and from all other subtypes by the presence of a substantial flora of prairie affinities, beyond widespread species such as Schizachyrium scoparium. Silphium terebinthinaceum, Cirsium carolinianum, Elymus canadensis, Eryngium yuccifolium, Liatris squarrosa, Parthenium auriculatum, Parthenium integrifolium, Tragia urens, and Sorghastrum nutans are typical of the both Prairie Barren subtypes and not the other subtypes. Synonyms: Quercus stellata - (Pinus echinata) / Schizachyrium scoparium - Symphyotrichum georgianum Woodland (CEGL003711). Ecological Systems: Piedmont Hardpan Woodland and Forest (CES202.268).
    [Show full text]
  • Download 20033-Echinacea-Report-Interactive
    RESEARCH REPORT Echinacea FOR THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION Sam Hoadley, Manager of Horticultural Research INTRODUCTION Skipper butterfly feeding on Echinacea ‘Glowing Dream’ 2 ECHINACEA FOR THE MID-ATLANTIC ECHINACEA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS CONEFLOWERS, are among the most iconic and recognizable native plants in North America. The earliest documented horticultural use of Echinacea can be traced to the late 17th century when Echinacea purpurea seeds were sent to England by the Virginia clergyman and naturalist John Banister. Medicinal use dates back even further as Native Americans used Echinacea to treat a variety of ailments, a tradition that has carried into modern times. Echinacea has enjoyed continued popularity for treating colds and for boosting the immune system. Although there is little scientific evidence of its benefits, Echinacea is currently one of the most popular commercially traded herbal supplements. The nine species of Echinacea are North American natives and predominantly occur in the central and eastern United States. The majority of wild coneflowers display pink, purple, and rarely white flowers from late spring to summer. Only one species, Echinacea paradoxa, breaks this color trend and produces canary yellow blooms in June. Dr. Jim Ault of the Chicago Botanic Garden was among the first plant breeders to intentionally cross multiple species in the 1990s. Since that time, the breeding and selection of coneflower species has further unlocked the horticultural potential of this genus resulting in a staggering variety of new cultivars in American and European horticultural markets. Today, Echinacea are available in an array of colors including, white, yellow, orange, red, pink, purple, and even green.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan
    SMOOTH CONEFLOWER (Echinacea laevigata) Recovery Plan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region S Atlanta, Georgia RECOVERY PLAN for Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) Prepared by Nora A. Murdock U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville. North Carolina for Southeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Atlanta. Georgia Approved: Noreen K. dough, Regiona U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: /j~jVAiI Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors. State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as aDproved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and completion of the recovery tasks. Literature citations should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Smooth Coneflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 31 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492-6403 or 1-800/582-3421 Fees for recovery plans vary, depending upon the number of pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Avifauna in North Carolina Piedmont Prairies
    Assessment of Avifauna in North Carolina Piedmont Prairies by Conor Makepeace Advisor: Dr. Nicolette Cagle Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University 2017 Assessment of Avifauna in Makepeace2 North Carolina Piedmont Prairies Executive Summary Piedmont Prairies are an important early stage of successional habitat in the Southeastern United States. These historic ecosystems once ranged up to 40 km in size and were maintained by frequent disturbance from fires, grazing of large herbivores, and common drought. By the turn of the century, most of these historic prairies had been replaced by cities or agricultural fields. Today, land management organizations including businesses and corporations, especially those in Research Triangle (i.e., RTP), have taken an interest in restoring small sections of prairie habitats to create useful living landscapes. One of the goals of this restoration work is to attract native species such as insects and birds by providing habitat for foraging and nesting. Using birds as an indicator species, this study attempted to quantify the changes in ecosystems and species composition resulting from the restoration of native Piedmont Prairie sites. This study used a paired sample design where each prairie site was paired with a non-prairie alternative site, most often an unmanaged open grassy area. The prairie sites were half restored prairies, utilizing specific management to promote native vegetation, and half native prairies, lightly managed areas where historic habitat still persists. Twenty-two total sites were used in this study, eleven prairies and eleven paired alternative sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Reintroduction of the Endangered Echinacea Laevigata: Comparison of Planting Methods and Effects of Light Intensi
    EXPERIMENTAL REINTRODUCTION OF THE ENDANGERED ECHINACEA LAEVIGATA: COMPARISON OF PLANTING METHODS AND EFFECTS OF LIGHT INTENSITY ON BIOMASS AND PHOTOSYNTHESIS by HEATHER ALLEY (Under the direction of DR. JAMES M. AFFOLTER) ABSTRACT In an experimental reintroduction of the endangered species Echinacea laevigata, we tested several planting methods to determine the optimal method for establishing populations in the wild. High survival rates and comparable growth among plants from all planting methods suggests that reintroduction is a promising conservation strategy for the species and that there are various options for introducing populations. Plants performed well regardless of age at the time of planting, spacing, and presence or absence of soil amendment. Therefore, reintroduction practitioners may weigh logistical costs and benefits when choosing reintroduction methods for E. laevigata. Based on theoretical predictions and our findings, we suggest that an ideal method for establishing populations is to plant adult plants (older than one year) in the spring, without soil amendment. This recommendation is preliminary and contingent on the future survival and reproductive success of reintroduced individuals. In order to more effectively and efficiently manage E. laevigata populations, it is important to understand the role of the light environment in the species’ decline. While it is generally agreed that the species decline is in part due to the lack of fire-maintained, early successional habitat, the extent to which light limits population persistence has not been quantified. We compare the effects of high, medium and low developmental light levels on photosynthetic performance as described by light curves, and on biomass allocation. We found no significant difference in photosynthetic response among plants grown at different light levels.
    [Show full text]
  • 34O Federal ~Sgister / Vol. 57, No~196W I Thursday
    ~s ~34O Federal ~sgister / Vol. 57, No~196W I Thursday. October 8. i9~2-/ Rules and Regulations I collected in South Carolina..in.1888. This North Carolina and South Carolina), and coneflower grows up to 1.5 meters tail marble (in South Carolina and Georgia). from a vertical root stock; stems are Optimal sites are characterized by smooth, with few leaves. The largest abundant sunlight and little competition leaves are the basal leaves, which reach in the herbaceous layer (Caddy 1991). 20 cm in length and 7.5 cm in width. Natural fires, as well as large have long stems, and are elliptical to herbivores, are part of the history of the 50 CFR PART 17 broadly lanceolate. tapering to the base. vegetation in this species’ range; many and smooth to slightly rough. The mid- RIN 1O1S-A873 of the associated herbs are also stem leaves have shorter stems or no cormophytic, sun-loving species, which Endangered and Threatened Wildlife stems and are smaller in size than the depend on periodic disturbances to and Plants; Echinacea la.v$gata basal leaves. The rays of the flowers reduce the shade and competition of (Smooth Coneflower) Determined To (petal-like structures) are light pink to woody plants (Kral 1963 and Caddy purplish, usually drooping, and 5 to8 cm B. Endangered 1991) long. Flower heads are usually solitary. AGENCY: Fish and Wtldlife Service. Flowering occurs from May through July. A total of 59 populations of Echinacea Interior. The fruit is a gray-brown. oblong. loevigata have been reported historically from 24 counties in 8 States.
    [Show full text]
  • Uwharrie National Forest
    BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE NC 24/27 WIDENING – UWHARRIE NATIONAL FOREST MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NC TIP NO. R-2527 WBS ELEMENT 35572.1.1 APRIL 2019 Contact Person: Matthew M. Haney Environmental Program Specialist North Carolina Department of Transportation Natural Environment Section Biological Surveys Group 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 919.707.6122 [email protected] Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 II. POTENTIAL IMPACTS CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 1 III. SPECIES CONSIDERED AND METHODS ........................................................................... 2 IV. EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONDITION ............................................................................... 2 A. BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AREA................................................................................................................. 2 B. STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................................................... 7 C. TIMING OF FIELD SURVEYS ................................................................................................................... 7 D. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN, AND NORTH CAROLINA LISTED SPECIES .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Common Name: SMOOTH CONEFLOWER
    Common Name: SMOOTH CONEFLOWER Scientific Name: Echinacea laevigata (C. L. Boynton & Beadle) Blake Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: Echinacea purpurea (Linnaeus) Moench var. laevigata (C. L. Boynton & Beadle) Cronquist Family: Asteraceae/Compositae (aster) Rarity Ranks: G2/S2 State Legal Status: Endangered Federal Legal Status: Endangered Federal Wetland Status: none Description: Perennial herb with smooth, usually unbranched stems up to 14 - 43 inches (35 - 110 cm) tall. Basal leaf blades 4 - 20 inches (10 - 50 cm) inches long and 1 - 2½ inches (3 - 6.5 cm) wide, with slightly winged, purplish leaf stalks up to 10 inches (26 cm) long; lower leaf surface smooth, upper surface smooth or slightly rough; leaf margins with small teeth, especially near the tip. Stem leaves similar in shape to basal leaves, alternate, widely spaced, and gradually reduced in size up the stem. Flower head solitary at the top of the stem, with a central, rounded or cone-shaped disk about 1 inch (3 cm) wide and 1 ½ inches (4 cm) high. Ray flowers 1⅜ - 3 inches (3.5 - 8 cm) long, pink to pale purple, drooping. Disk flowers purple, with yellow pollen 3 and sharp bristles (chaff) with purple, incurving tips. Fruit about /16 inch (0.5 cm) long, dry, seedlike, 4-sided. Similar Species: Pale purple coneflower (Echinacea pallida) basal leaves are up to 13 inches (33 cm) long and only 1½ inches (4 cm) wide; its pollen grains are white. It is not native to Georgia but has escaped from gardens into natural areas. Related Rare Species: Purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea, Special Concern) is widely planted in gardens but, because it requires basic soils, is rare in the wild in Georgia; it occurs in open woodlands in several north Georgia counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Reintroduction and Seed Banking (Aka Ex Situ Conservation) Ex Situ Conservation
    Plant Reintroduction and Seed Banking (aka Ex situ conservation) Ex situ Conservation Protecting species outside of their natural habitat to areas equipped for their protection and preservation Center for Plant Conservation Everything you always wanted to know about plant conservation, but were afraid to ask. The ex situ/in situ continuum • 1,800 botanic gardens hold 2.5 million accessions, representing over 18,000 taxa • About 100 taxa exist only in botanic gardens • Many ex situ collections vastly outnumber surviving wild populations • In the US, over 80 rare taxa are being reintroduced (mostly through CPC) • Seeds of Success (US DOI/BLM) partners providing seed of common plants for broad scale habitat restoration Determining ex situ needs in plant conservation • Are ex situ activities appropriate and needed? • If so, what techniques? . Cultivation? . Seed banking as an “insurance policy”? . Alternative techniques for taxa that cannot be stored? . Reintroduction/translocation? Clues that ex situ activities are needed • Small populations (size and/or number decreasing) • Increased fragmentation and/or isolation • Variable environment or current stressors • Imminent threats • Highly degraded habitat • Genetic or demographic problems • High priority species not receiving “attention” More clues – Plants aren’t reproducing • No seeds…. – Lack of pollinators – Lack of compatible mates • No seedlings… – Poor conditions for establishment – Fruit dispersal agent unknown or lacking – Severe inbreeding Seed processing and storage at NCBG # of new
    [Show full text]