46632 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * * (TDD) may call the Federal Information 8 inches (in.)) long and 1.5 cm (0.6 in.) [FR Doc. 2011–19416 Filed 8–2–11; 8:45 am] Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877–8339, wide arise from the base of E. BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. tennesseensis and are beset with coarse SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: hairs, especially along the margins. The ray flowers (i.e., petals surrounding the Previous Federal Actions DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR darker purple flowers of the central Section 12 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 disc) are pink to purple and spread Fish and Wildlife Service et seq.) directed the Secretary of the horizontally or arch slightly forward Smithsonian Institution to prepare a from the disc to a length of 2–4 cm (0.8– 50 CFR Part 17 report on those plants considered to be 1.8 in.). endangered, threatened, or extinct. On The following description of this [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0059; July 1, 1975, the Service published a species’ life history is summarized from 92220–1113–0000–C6] notice in the Federal Register (40 FR Hemmerly (1986, pp. 193–195): Seeds RIN 1018–AW26 27824) accepting the Smithsonian report are shed from plants during fall and as a petition to list taxa named therein winter and begin germinating in early Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under section 4(c)(2) [now 4(b)(3)] of the March of the following year, producing and Plants; Removal of Echinacea Act and announced our intention to numerous seedlings by late March. Most tennesseensis (Tennessee Purple review the status of those plants. of the seedling growth occurs during the Coneflower) From the Federal List of Echinacea tennesseensis was included first 6 or 7 weeks of the first year, during Endangered and Threatened Plants in that report (40 FR 27873). Tennessee which plants will grow to a height of 2– purple coneflower is the common name 3 cm (0.8–1.2 in) or less. Plants remain AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, for E. tennesseensis; however, we will in a rosette stage and root length Interior. primarily use the scientific name of this increases rapidly during these weeks. ACTION: Final rule; availability of final species throughout this final rule. Plants can reach sexual maturity by the post-delisting monitoring plan. On June 16, 1976, we published a middle of their second growing season proposed rule in the Federal Register and only small losses in seed viability SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and (41 FR 24524) to designate have been observed after a period of 5 Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), approximately 1,700 vascular plant years in dry storage (Hemmerly 1976, p. are removing the plant Echinacea species, including Echinacea 17). However, Baskin and Baskin (1989, tennesseensis (commonly referred to as tennesseensis, as endangered under p. 66) suggest that Echinacea Tennessee purple coneflower) from the section 4 of the Act. On June 6, 1979, tennesseensis might not form persistent List of Endangered and Threatened we published a final rule in the Federal seed banks, based on results of field Plants. This action is based on a Register (44 FR 32604) designating E. germination trials. Individuals of E. thorough review of the best scientific tennesseensis as endangered. The final tennesseensis can live up to at least 6 and commercial data available, which rule identified the following threats to years, but the maximum lifespan is indicate that this species has recovered E. tennesseensis: Loss of habitat due to probably much longer (Baskauf 1993, p. and no longer meets the definition of residential and recreational 37). threatened or endangered under the development; collection of the species Echinacea tennesseensis was first Endangered Species Act of 1973, as for commercial or recreational purposes; collected in 1878 in Rutherford County, amended (Act). Our review of the status grazing; no State law protecting rare Tennessee, by Dr. A. Gattinger and later of this species shows that populations plants in Tennessee; and succession of described by Beadle (1898, p. 359) as are stable, threats are addressed, and cedar glade communities in which E. Brauneria tennesseensis on the basis of adequate regulatory mechanisms are in tennesseensis occurred. specimens collected by H. Eggert in place so that the species is not On February 14, 1983, we published 1897 from ‘‘a dry, gravelly hill’’ near the currently, and is not likely to again the Tennessee Coneflower Recovery town of LaVergne. Fernald (1900, pp. become, an endangered species within Plan (Service 1983, 41 pp.), a revision 86–87) did not accept Beadle’s the foreseeable future in all or a of which we published on November 14, identification of B. tennesseensis as a significant portion of its range. Finally, 1989 (Service 1989, 30 pp.). On distinct species, instead he merged it we announce the availability of the final September 21, 2007, we initiated a 5- with the more widespread E. post-delisting monitoring plan for E. year status review of this species (72 FR angustifolia. This treatment was upheld tennesseensis. 54057). On August 12, 2010, we by many taxonomists until McGregor (1968, pp. 139–141) classified the taxon DATES: This rule is effective on published a proposed rule to remove as E. tennesseensis (Beadle) Small, September 2, 2011. Echinacea tennesseensis from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, based on examination of materials from ADDRESSES: Copies of the post-delisting provided notice of the availability of a collections discussed above and from monitoring plan are available by request post-delisting monitoring plan, and collections by R. McVaugh in 1936. As from the Tennessee Ecological Services opened a 60-day public comment period McGregor (1968, p. 141) was unable to Field Office (see FOR FURTHER (75 FR 48896). locate any plants while conducting INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at: searches during the months of June http://www.fws.gov/cookeville/ and Species Information through August, 1959–1961, he http://www.regulations.gov. A member of the sunflower family concluded that the species was very rare FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (Asteraceae), Echinacea tennesseensis is or possibly extinct in his monograph of Mary E. Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. a perennial herb with a long, fusiform the genus Echinacea. The species went Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee (i.e., thickened toward the middle and unnoticed until its rediscovery in a Ecological Services Field Office, 446 tapered towards either end), blackened cedar glade in Davidson County as Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501 root. In late summer, the species bears reported by Baskin et al. (1968, p. 70), (telephone 931/528–6481; facsimile showy purple flower heads on one-to- and subsequently in Wilson County by 931/528–7075). Persons who use a many hairy branches. Linear to lance- Quarterman and Hemmerly (1971, pp. telecommunications device for the deaf shaped leaves up to 20 centimeters (cm; 304–305), who also noted that the area

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 46633

believed to be the type locality for the than 5 cm (2 in.), and subxeric I) to include all known colonies at that species was destroyed by the (moderately dry) communities that time, including those from a sixth construction of a trailer park. occurred on soils deeper than 5 cm (2 population introduced into glades at the More recently, Binns et al. (2002, pp. in.) (Somers et al. 1986, p. 186). Stones River National Battlefield. For 610–632) revised the taxonomy of the Quarterman (1986, p. 124) noted that the purposes of this rule, we have genus Echinacea and in doing so soil depths greater than 20 cm (8 in.) in followed these population delineations reduced Echinacea tennesseensis to one the vicinity of cedar glades tend to and have assigned most colonies that of five varieties of E. pallida. Their support plant communities dominated have been discovered since the status taxonomic treatment considers E. by eastern red cedar (Juniperus survey was completed to the pallida var. tennesseensis (Beadle) virginiana) and other woody species. geographically closest population. Small to be a synonym of their E. Somers et al. (1986, p. 191) found E. The six Echinacea tennesseensis tennesseensis (Beadle) Binns, B. R. tennesseensis in four of the community populations occur within an Baum, & Arnason, comb. nov. (Binns et types they classified, but could not approximately 400 square kilometer al. 2002, pp. 629). However, this has not determine the fidelity of the species to (km2; 154 square miles (mi2)) area and been unanimously accepted among a particular community type because it include between 2 and 11 colonies each. plant taxonomists (Estes 2008, pers. only occurred on three of the glades In 2005, TDEC and the Service comm.; Weakley 2008, pp. 139–140). they studied and was infrequently confirmed the presence of E. Kim et al. (2004) examined the genetic encountered in plots within those sites. tennesseensis at 36 colonies and diversity of Echinacea species and their The communities where E. counted the number of flowering stems results conflicted with the division of tennesseensis occurred spanned two in each (TDEC 2006, pp. 4–5). Fifteen of the genus by Binns et al. (2002, pp. 617– xeric and two subxeric types. The xeric these are natural colonies, and 21 of the 632) into two subgenera, Echinacea and community types, named for the 36 colonies have been established Pallida, one of which—Echinacea— dominant species that either alone or through introductions for the purpose of included only E. purpurea. Mechanda et combined constituted greater than 50 recovering E. tennesseensis (TDEC 1991, al. (2004, p. 481) concluded that their percent cover, were the (1) Nostoc pp. 3–7; TDEC 1996, Appendix I; analysis of genetic diversity within commune (blue-green algae)— Lincicome 2008, pers. comm.). Three of Echinacea only supported recognition Sporobolus vaginiflorus (poverty these introduced colonies constitute the of one of the five varieties of E. pallida dropseed) and (2) Dalea gattingeri sixth population that was established at that Binns et al. (2002, pp. 626–629) (purpletassels) communities. The a Designated State Natural Area (DSNA) described, namely E. pallida var. subxeric types were the (1) S. in the Stones River National Battlefield tennesseensis. While Mechanda et al. vaginiflorus and (2) Pleurochaete in Rutherford County (TDEC 1996, (2004, p. 481) would also reduce E. squarrosa (square pleurochaete moss) Appendix I). We do not consider 2 of tennesseensis from specific to varietal communities. Mean soil depths across the 21 introduced colonies as status, the conflicting results between these communities ranged from 4.1 to contributing to recovery and do not these two investigations point to a lack 7.7 cm (1.6 to 3.0 in.) (Somers et al. include them in our analysis of the of consensus regarding the appropriate 1986, pp. 186–188). current status of E. tennesseensis for taxonomic rank of taxa within the genus reasons explained in the Recovery Echinacea. Because clear acceptance of When Echinacea tennesseensis was section of this rule. An additional the taxonomic revision by Binns et al. listed as endangered in 1979 (44 FR introduced colony that was not (2002, pp. 610–632) is lacking, and 32604), it was known only from three monitored during 2005, but for which Flora of North America (http:// locations, one each in Davidson, TDEC maintains an element occurrence www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_ Rutherford, and Wilson Counties. When record, brings the number of introduced id=1&taxon_id=250066491, accessed the species’ recovery plan was colonies we consider here to 20 and the December 3, 2009) and a flora under completed in 1989, there were five total number of colonies considered for development by Weakley (2008, pp. extant populations ranging in size from this rulemaking to 35. 139–140) both retain specific status for approximately 3,700 to 89,000 plants In assessing the status of Echinacea E. tennesseensis, we continue to and consisting of one to three colonies tennesseensis for this final rule, with recognize E. tennesseensis as a species each (Clebsch 1988, p. 14; Service 1989, respect to the recovery criterion for the purposes of this rule. p. 2). The recovery plan defined a described below, we use data from Echinacea tennesseensis is restricted population as a group of colonies in flowering stem counts conducted by the to limestone barrens and cedar glades of which the probability of gene exchange Service and TDEC (2006, pp. 4–5) in the Central Basin, Interior Low Plateau through cross pollination is high, and a 2005 (Table 1), qualitative data collected Physiographic Province, in Davidson, colony was defined as all E. at various times since the initial Rutherford, and Wilson Counties in tennesseensis plants found at a single discovery of each colony (TDEC 1996, Tennessee (Tennessee Department of site that are separated from other plants Appendix I), and quantitative Environment and Conservation (TDEC) within the population by unsuitable monitoring data from nine natural 2006, p. 2). These middle Tennessee habitat (Service 1989, p. 1). While colonies and five introduced colonies habitats typically occur on thin plates of analysis of genetic variability within E. (Tables 2 and 3) (Drew 1991, p. 54; Lebanon limestone that are more or less tennesseensis did not reveal high levels Clebsch 1993, pp. 11–16; Drew and horizontally bedded, though interrupted of differentiation among these Clebsch 1995, pp. 62–67; TDEC by vertical fissures in which sinkholes populations (Baskauf et al. 1994, p. unpublished data). In order to address may be readily formed (Quarterman 186), recovery efforts have been comments we received in response to 1986, p. 124). Somers et al. (1986, pp. implemented and tracked with respect the proposed delisting rule, the Service 180–189) described seven plant to these geographically defined and TDEC undertook a thorough review community types from their study of 10 populations. The geographic of the monitoring data collected by cedar glades in middle Tennessee. They distribution of these populations and TDEC and reanalyzed those data to divided those communities into xeric the colonies they are comprised of was produce ratios among juvenile and adult (dry) communities, which occurred in updated in a status survey of E. stage-classes (Table 2) and to produce locations with no soil or soil depth less tennesseensis by TDEC (1996, Appendix density estimates with confidence

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES 46634 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

intervals for each monitored site (Table stems and other demographic classes. those estimates were based on ratios 3). Table 1 is revised in this final rule to among stage classes that were calculated Table 1 in the proposed rule to delist report only the numbers of flowering using data from a single year, in which Echinacea tennesseensis (75 FR 48896, stems that were counted at each natural the ratio of other stage classes to adults August 12, 2010) provided estimates of and introduced colony during 2005. We was the highest observed during any the numbers of individuals in each removed the estimates of numbers of year of monitoring for E. tennesseensis, colony, which were produced based on adults and total numbers of plants that and those data were only from naturally relationships reported by TDEC (2006, appeared in the proposed rule because occurring colonies. p. 2) between numbers of flowering TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TENNESSEE PURPLE CONEFLOWER POPULATIONS AND COLONIES. INCLUDES DATA ON ORIGIN, WHETHER COLONIES ARE SECURE OR SELF-SUSTAINING, AND FLOWERING STEM COUNTS FROM 2005 SURVEYS [* = Colonies selected for post-delisting monitoring.]

Population Year First ob- Secure Self-Sustaining Flowering Population name Colony No. EO No. Ownership Origin served Y/N Y/N stems

1 ...... Mount View 1.1 001 TDEC– Natural ... 1963 Y Y 5,430 DNAa. 1.2 022 COEb ...... Intro- 1990 Y Y 252 duced. 1.4 031 COE ...... Intro- 1989 Y Y 596 duced.

Totals ...... 6,278

2 ...... Vesta ...... 2.1 011 Private ...... Natural ... 1970 N Y 2,820 *2.1 006 TDEC–DNA Natural... 1988 Y Y 4,970 2.2 002 TDEC–DNA Natural... 1980 Y Y 4,274 2.3 038 TDFc Intro- 1983 Y Y 139 (DSNAd). duced. 2.4 039 TDF Intro- 1983 N N 1 (DSNA). duced. *2.6 040 TDEC–SP Intro- 1982 N Y 252 duced. 2.7 048 TDF Intro- 2003 N N 6 (DSNA). duced. 2.8 050 TDEC–DNA Natural... 2003 Y Y 2,143 +2.9 053 Private ...... Intro- 2006 N Y n/a duced.

Totals ...... 14,605

3 ...... Vine ...... *3.1 005 TDF Natural ... 1979 Y Y 7,555 (DSNA)/ private. *3.2 016 TDEC–DNA Natural... 1989 Y Y 12,457 3.2 015 Private ...... Natural ... 1989 N Y 432 3.2 012 Private ...... Natural ... 1989 N Y 610 *3.2 017 TDEC–DNA Natural... 1989 Y Y 12,457 3.3 014 Private ...... Natural ... 1989 N N 11 *3.4 021 Private Natural ... 1990 Y Y 12,979 (DSNA). 3.5 013 Private ...... Natural ... 1989 N Y 2,529 3.6 018 Private ...... Natural ... 1989 N Y 157 3.7 007 Private ...... Intro- 1979 N Y 1,705 duced. *3.8 030 TDF ...... Intro- 1990 N Y 1,863 duced. 3.9 036 TDF ...... Intro- 1989 Y Y 2,744 duced. 3.10 033 Private ...... Natural ... 1999 N Y 5,374 3.11 041 Private ...... Natural ... 1998 N Y 1,935

...... Totals 62,808

4 ...... Allvan ...... *4.2 027 COE Intro- 1989 Y Y 6,183 (DSNA). duced. *4.3 047 COE ...... Intro- 1989 N Y 385 duced.

...... 6,568

5 ...... Couchville .. *5.1 010 TDEC–DNA Natural... 1984 Y Y 7,353 5.2 020 Private ...... Natural ... 1990 N Y 392 5.3 024 TDEC–SP Intro- 1985 N Y 1,607 duced. 5.4 035 TDEC–SP Intro- 1991 Y Y 863 duced. 5.4 026 TDEC–SP Intro- 1989 Y Y 987 duced. *5.5 025 TDEC–SP Intro- 1987 N Y 1,300 duced.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:50 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 46635

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TENNESSEE PURPLE CONEFLOWER POPULATIONS AND COLONIES. INCLUDES DATA ON ORIGIN, WHETHER COLONIES ARE SECURE OR SELF-SUSTAINING, AND FLOWERING STEM COUNTS FROM 2005 SURVEYS— Continued [* = Colonies selected for post-delisting monitoring.]

Population Year First ob- Secure Self-Sustaining Flowering Population name Colony No. EO No. Ownership Origin served Y/N Y/N stems

5.6 032 TDEC–SP Intro- 1989 Y Y 846 duced. 5.7 008 TDEC–SP Natural ... 1981 N N 17 5.8 049 COE Intro- 2000 Y Y 101 (DSNA). duced.

Totals ...... 13,466

6 ...... Stones *6.1 009 NPS e Intro- 1970 Y Y 2,535 River Na- (DSNA). duced. tional Bat- tlefield. 6.2 028 NPS Intro- 1995 Y Y 237 (DSNA). duced. 6.3 029 NPS Intro- 1991 Y Y 852 (DSNA). duced.

Totals ...... Totals 3,624

Grand To- ...... 107,349 tals. a Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation—Division of Natural Areas Designated State Natural Areas (DSNA). b U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. c Tennessee Division of Forestry. d DSNA that are not owned by TDEC–DNA. e National Park Service. + Colony 2.9 was not monitored during 2005, because it was not reported to TDEC–DNA until 2006, at which time there were thousands of plants (Lincicome 2006, pers. comm).

TABLE 2—RATIO OF JUVENILES TO ADULT DETERMINED FROM STAGE-SPECIFIC COUNT DATA ACQUIRED DURING SAMPLING BY DREW (1991, P. 54) FOR 1987, CLEBSCH (1993, P. 11) FOR 1992, AND TDEC (UNPUBLISHED) [* Colony 4.1 was destroyed circa 2004–2005.]

Colony EO Colony Origin No. No.(s) 1987 1992 1998 2000 2001 2004 2006 2008 mean

Natural ...... 1.1 1 1.58 ...... 1.78 ...... 2.47 10.37 ...... 1.06 3.45 1.2 22 ...... 2.76 ...... n/a 2.1 6 3.45 ...... 0.94 2.60 1.67 9.43 ...... 1.16 3.21 3.1 5 2.49 ...... 2.01 ...... 2.78 14.52 ...... 0.91 4.54 3.2 12, 15– ...... 1.94 ...... n/a 17 3.4 21 ...... 2.00 ...... 10.96 ...... 1.38 4.78 3.5 13 ...... 1.88 ...... n/a 4.1* 3 2.21 ...... 1.82 ...... 2.03 12.03 ...... 4.52 5.1 10 4.77 ...... 5.19 2.64 1.42 8.27 ...... 0.92 3.87

Introduced ...... 3.8 30 ...... 6.17 ...... n/a 4.2 27 ...... 4.78 ...... n/a 4.3 47 ...... 11.95 ...... n/a 5.5 25 ...... 4.12 ...... n/a 6.1 9 ...... 5.18 ...... n/a Annual mean 2.90 2.15 2.35 2.62 2.07 10.93 6.44 1.08 ......

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED MEAN DENSITY PER SQUARE METER OF ECHINACEA TENNESSEENSIS AND 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL. DATA SOURCES INCLUDE DREW AND CLEBSCH (1995, P. 62) FOR 1987 AND TDEC (UNPUBLISHED). [* Colony 4.1 was destroyed circa 2004–2005.]

1987 1998 2000 2001 2004 2006 2008 Colony EO Origin No. No. 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Mean Mean CI Mean CI Mean CI Mean CI Mean CI Mean CI

Natural ...... 1.1 1 12.90 41.63 42.25 25.56 20.57 44.03 37.33 ...... 9.71 8.02 2.1 6 13.10 30.59 12.01 21.33 8.95 16.38 6.70 48.45 16.59 ...... 13.83 3.40 3.1 5 20.70 58.20 23.84 51.77 29.82 92.45 30.73 ...... 18.79 7.27 3.4 21 65.33 41.07 ...... 20.93 12.47 *4.1 3 6.20 25.50 63.35 14.13 21.98 15.36 24.37 ...... 5.1 10 6.20 27.75 11.84 7.82 3.78 8.56 3.10 15.03 6.16 ...... 4.76 1.79

Introduced ...... 3.8 30 ...... 3.15 6.24 ...... 4.2 27 ...... 11.60 12.98 ...... 4.3 47 ...... 19.50 34.91 ...... 5.5 25 ...... 12.03 8.96 ......

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:50 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES 46636 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED MEAN DENSITY PER SQUARE METER OF Echinacea tennesseensis AND 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL. DATA SOURCES INCLUDE DREW AND CLEBSCH (1995, P. 62) FOR 1987 AND TDEC (UNPUBLISHED).—Continued [* Colony 4.1 was destroyed circa 2004–2005.]

1987 1998 2000 2001 2004 2006 2008 Colony EO Origin No. No. 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Mean Mean CI Mean CI Mean CI Mean CI Mean CI Mean CI

6.1 9 ...... 41.37 47.09 ......

Natural colonies, or those not known objective, measurable criteria, or a dynamic process requiring adaptive to have been established through recovery criteria contained in recovery management, planning, implementing, introductions, included 83,895 plans, must indicate when we would and evaluating the degree of recovery of flowering stems in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. anticipate an analysis of the five threat a species that may, or may not, fully 6). Introduced colonies, excluding the factors under section 4(a)(1) would follow the guidance provided in a two mentioned above, accounted for result in a determination that a species recovery plan. 23,454 flowering stems (TDEC 2006, p. is no longer endangered or threatened. Thus, while the recovery plan 6). Natural colonies constituted Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the provides important guidance on the approximately 78 percent of the total determination be made ‘‘solely on the direction and strategy for recovery, and flowering stems and introduced basis of the best scientific and indicates when a rulemaking process colonies approximately 22 percent. In commercial data available.’’ may be initiated, the determination to this rule, we use the colony numbers Thus, while recovery plans are remove a species from the Federal List reported by TDEC (1996, Appendix I) intended to provide guidance to the of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and have sequentially assigned Service, States, and other partners on is ultimately based on an analysis of additional colony numbers to those methods of minimizing threats to listed whether a species is no longer which have been discovered since that species and on criteria that may be used endangered or threatened. The report was issued. In some instances, to determine when recovery is achieved, following discussion provides a brief there are gaps evident in the sequence they are not regulatory documents and review of recovery planning for of colony numbers discussed, cannot substitute for the determinations Echinacea tennesseensis as well as an representing colonies that have been and promulgation of regulations analysis of the recovery criteria and documented in the past but were either required under section 4(a)(1) of the goals as they relate to evaluating the extirpated or of unknown status at the Act. Determinations to remove a species status of the species. time of this rule. from the list made under section 4(a)(1) We first approved the Tennessee of the Act must be based on the best Coneflower Recovery Plan on February Recovery scientific and commercial data available 14, 1983 (Service 1983, 41 pp.) and Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to at the time of the determination, revised it on November 14, 1989 develop and implement recovery plans regardless of whether that information (Service 1989, 30 pp.). The recovery for the conservation and survival of differs from the recovery plan. plan includes one delisting criterion: endangered and threatened species In the course of implementing Echinacea tennesseensis will be unless we determine that such a plan conservation actions for a species, new considered recovered when there are at will not promote the conservation of the information is often gained that requires least five secure wild populations, each species. The Act directs that, to the recovery efforts to be modified with three self-sustaining colonies of at maximum extent practicable, we accordingly. There are many paths to least a minimal size. A colony will be incorporate into each plan: accomplishing recovery of a species, considered self-sustaining when there (1) Site-specific management actions and recovery may be achieved without are two juvenile plants for every that may be necessary to achieve the all criteria being fully met. For example, flowering one. Minimal size for each plan’s goals for conservation and one or more recovery criteria may have colony is 15 percent cover of flowers survival of the species; been exceeded while other criteria may over 669 square meters (m2; 800 square (2) Objective, measurable criteria, not have been accomplished, yet the yards (yd2); 7,200 square feet (ft2)) of which when met would result in a Service may judge that, overall, the suitable habitat. Establishing multiple determination, in accordance with the threats have been minimized populations during the recovery of provisions of section 4 of the Act, that sufficiently, and the species is robust endangered species serves two the species be removed from the list; enough, that the Service may reclassify important functions: and the species from endangered to (1) Providing redundancy on the (3) Estimates of the time required and threatened or perhaps delist the species. landscape to minimize the probability cost to carry out the plan. In other cases, recovery opportunities that localized stochastic disturbances However, revisions to the list (adding, may have been recognized that were not will threaten the entire species, and removing, or reclassifying a species) known at the time the recovery plan was (2) Preserving the genetic structure must reflect determinations made in finalized. These opportunities may be found within a species by maintaining accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and used instead of methods identified in the natural distribution of genetic 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires the recovery plan. variation among its populations. that the Secretary determine whether a Likewise, information on the species In the case of Echinacea species is endangered or threatened (or may be learned that was not known at tennesseensis, the need for multiple not) because of one or more of five the time the recovery plan was distinct populations to maintain genetic threat factors. Therefore, recovery finalized. The new information may structure is diminished, as Baskauf et al. criteria must indicate when a species is change the extent that criteria need to be (1994, p. 186) determined that the no longer endangered or threatened by met for recognizing recovery of the majority of genetic variability within any of the five factors. In other words, species. Overall, recovery of species is this species is maintained within each

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 46637

population rather than distributed collected for this demographic attribute plants with a cumulative leaf length less among them. These data were not (see Table 2 above) have typically than 30 cm (11.8 in)—had a high available at the time the recovery plan exceeded the value used in defining probability (i.e., approximately 50 was completed. With respect to self-sustaining in the recovery plan— percent) of dying during drought redundancy, the current number of E. i.e., that there be two juvenile plants for conditions (Drew and Clebsch 1995, p. tennesseensis colonies exceeds the total every flowering adult in a colony. The 66) (reference ‘‘Summary of Factors number recommended by the recovery mean ratio of juvenile to adult plants in Affecting the Species’’ section for the plan for delisting this species, and we natural colonies, for a given year of discussion of the coneflower mature believe the current distribution of monitoring, has ranged from 1.08 to plant’s attributes that allow it to endure secured colonies among geographically 10.93, based on data collected at two to and remain viable through periods of distinct populations, which are six sites per year in 1998, 2000, 2001, drought). separated by distances of 1.8 to 9 miles 2004, and 2008 (see Table 2 above). The However, we have not been able to (2.9–14.5 km), is adequate for mean of this ratio for each of these establish a clear relationship between minimizing the likelihood that isolated natural colonies across all years exceeds the amount of rainfall and the ratio of stochastic disturbances would threaten the ratio of two juveniles per adult. juveniles to adults. We acquired data for species. Ratios of juvenile to flowering adult monthly departures from normal rainfall The criterion in the recovery plan for plants in introduced colonies were first delisting Echinacea tennesseensis has for the period 1985 through 2010, estimated during 2006, when the mean collected at the Nashville International been met, as described below. was found to be 6.44 juveniles per adult Additionally, the level of protection Airport, from the National Climatic Data from a single year of data collected at Center (2011) to use in assessing currently afforded to the species and its six introduced colonies and the ratio for habitat, as well as the current status of available quantitative monitoring data each of these colonies was greater than on Echinacea tennesseensis for patterns threats, are outlined below in the 4 juveniles per adult (see Table 2 Summary of Factors Affecting the related to growing season precipitation above). Based on these data, we believe data. Figure 1 presents data on the Species section. that those colonies for which ratios of There currently are six geographically cumulative departure from normal juvenile to adult stage-classes are rainfall during March through August defined Echinacea tennesseensis available meet the required ratio of two populations, including the five for each year. In reviewing these data for juveniles per adult that the recovery potential influence of growing season described in the recovery plan (Service plan uses in defining self-sustaining. We 1989, pp. 3–7) and one introduced rainfall on E. tennesseensis ratios of believe that these data are representative juveniles to adults, we find no clear population at the Stones River National of the status of Echinacea tennesseensis Battlefield (TDEC 1996, Appendix I). pattern. For example, Figure 1 suggests generally given the distribution of Within these populations, there that less than normal growing season monitored colonies among each of the currently are 19 colonies of E. rainfall during the period 1985 through six populations used for tracking tennesseensis that occur entirely or 1987 would likely have created recovery efforts. mostly on protected lands, with five of conditions in which moisture-related the populations containing three or We reached our conclusion that this stress could have affected plant more colonies each. The Allvan criterion has been achieved in spite of populations but that situation is not population is the lone exception, as the 2008 assessment data which supported by the juvenile-to adult ratios only one of its two colonies is secure at indicate that the ratio of juveniles to provided in Table 2 for that same time this time. The 19 secured colonies adults was less than 2.0 at the five span which show four out of five accounted for 88,773 flowering stems in colonies that were assessed. Drew and colonies sampled during 1987 exceeded 2005, or approximately 83 percent of the Clebsch (1995, p. 67) witnessed the two-to-one ratio recommended by flowering stems observed; whereas, considerable variability in mortality the recovery plan. This absence of a colonies that we do not consider secure rates among stage classes of clear relationship leads us with no clear accounted for 18,576 flowering stems, or permanently-tagged Echinacea conclusion as to why the ratio of approximately 17 percent of the tennesseensis individuals measured juveniles to adults declined in 2008 but flowering stems observed (TDEC 2006, over the periods 1987–1988 and 1988– we will track this ratio closely as part pp. 4–5). 1989, which they attributed to of our post-delisting monitoring While data on numbers of juvenile interannual variability in rainfall. Based program to ensure that the ratio of plants have not been collected from all on observations in their first year of juveniles to adults remains at or above colonies, monitoring data that have been study, they determined that seedlings— the target value in the future.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES 46638 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

As part of the delisting criterion on the other hand, remain fairly stable from 1987 for some colonies. However, stated in the recovery plan, each self- once seedlings have become established these are the best scientific data sustaining colony should consist of 15 following germination (Elzinga et al. available for judging the stability of percent cover of flowers over 669 m2 1998, p. 178). these populations since initial (800 yd2, 7,200 ft2) of suitable habitat, The recommendation that each colony monitoring data were collected in 1987. which has not been met in all cases. occupy 669 m2 (800 yd2, 7,200 ft2) of We believe that the available However, we have determined that this suitable habitat does not reflect the quantitative data demonstrate that while recommendation of percent coverage of range of variability observed in several E. tennesseensis densities fluctuate over flowers over a particular habitat acreage natural colonies that have been time, the species’ density has remained does not reflect the best available discovered since the recovery plan was comparable to reference values provided scientific information. Drew and completed. Many of these colonies are by Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 62). The Clebsch (1995, pp. 61–67) conducted constrained by the small patches of exception to this trend is colony 4.1, monitoring during 1987 through 1989 cedar glade habitat where they occur which was located in a heavily that established baseline conditions for and provide evidence of a wider range disturbed site and was destroyed five of the colonies included in the of natural variability in habitat patch sometime after monitoring was recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 3–7); in size and colony size in this species that conducted during 2004 and before doing so, they found that percent flower was not recognized at the time the flowering stems were counted at each cover of Echinacea tennesseensis at recovery plan was published. colony in 2005. Prior to its destruction, these sites ranged from 2 to 12 percent, We believe that either total counts of estimated densities at this colony never exceeding the 15 percent plants in various stage classes within a exceeded the reference values. Despite threshold stipulated in the recovery colony of Echinacea tennesseensis, or the loss of this colony, the recovery plan. Total percent cover of all sampling within a known area to criterion for Echinacea tennesseensis vegetation in the habitats where these generate density estimates (TDEC 2005, has been met. colonies occur ranged from 42 to 59 pp. 3–4, 16–20), provide superior While quantitative monitoring data percent, meaning that E. tennesseensis metrics over cover estimates for are not available for all Echinacea would have to have constituted 25 to 40 monitoring trends in population size. tennesseensis colonies, we believe these percent of the total vegetative cover to Various sampling designs have been monitoring results are indicative of the have occupied 15 percent flower cover used to estimate density per square species’ overall viability because they in these sites. In contrast, E. meter in one or more colonies of each are distributed among its six tennesseensis only constituted between E. tennesseensis population, providing populations. The monitoring data 5 and 22 percent of total vegetative long-term monitoring data to use in discussed above in relation to the cover in plots studied by Drew and judging their stability (Drew and recovery criterion definition of self- Clebsch (1995, p. 63). In addition to the Clebsch 1995, p. 62; TDEC unpublished sustaining provide a measure of the fact that the recovery plan articulated a data). We acknowledge that the sustainability of both natural and standard for percent coverage of flowers confidence intervals are large, reflecting introduced populations and also that was not met by the reference the variability in the data used to demonstrate the temporal variability colonies known to exist when the plan produce many of the density estimates both in density and relative abundances was published, a disadvantage of using (see Table 3 above) produced from the of juvenile and adult stage classes. cover estimates for monitoring a rare monitoring data for 1998 through 2008. These data, combined with flowering species such as E. tennesseensis is that Further, Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 62) stem counts at all colonies in 2005 this value can change during the course did not provide a measure of precision (Table 1, TDEC 2006, pp. 4–5) and of a growing season; density estimates, for the estimated densities they reported qualitative data (TDEC 1996, Appendix

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES ER03AU11.012 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 46639

I, TDEC 2010) for all colonies (TDEC 1991, p. 3), or population 5 of the tennesseensis distributed among six documenting whether they have recovery plan (Service 1989, p. 7). The populations (see Table 1 above), persisted over time, changed fifth colony was smaller, not in a natural fulfilling the recovery plan intentions of dramatically in abundance, or are setting, and not assigned to any of the establishing a sufficient number and threatened by natural or human-caused recovery plan populations in the TDEC distribution of secure populations and factors, are adequate for judging report (1991, p. 2). Other colonies have colonies to remove the risk of extinction whether the colonies should be been discovered during the course of for this species within the foreseeable considered self-sustaining. Using these surveys conducted in the cedar glades of future. Therefore, we consider this data we have determined that 31 out of middle Tennessee, and the number of recovery action completed. extant natural colonies now totals 15. A the total 35 colonies are self-sustaining, Recovery Action (3): Provide a Seed summary of the currently known 19 of which are the colonies described Source Representative of Each Natural populations (as well as the natural and above as secure. We discuss the Colony available data for each colony below introduced colonies they are comprised under the subheading Recovery Action of) is provided in Table 1 above, and in The Missouri Botanical Garden (5): Monitor colonies and conduct the discussion concerning recovery (MOBOT), an affiliate institution of the management activities, if necessary, to action number (5). Because systematic Centers for Plant Conservation (CPC), maintain the recovered state in each searches for new colonies have been collected accessions of seeds from each colony. conducted since the completion of the of the six populations currently in The current recovery plan identifies recovery plan and have led to the existence during 1994 (Albrecht 2008a six primary actions necessary for discovery of previously unknown pers. comm.) and from four of those recovering Echinacea tennesseensis: colonies, we consider this recovery populations during 2010 (Albrecht (1) Continue systematic searches for action to be completed. 2010, pers. comm.). This collection is maintained according to CPC guidelines new colonies; Recovery Action (2): Secure Each (2) Secure each colony; (Albrecht 2008b, pers. comm.). Five of (3) Provide a seed source Colony the accessions taken by MOBOT were representative of each natural colony; We have assessed the security of each provided to the National Center for (4) Establish new colonies; Echinacea tennesseensis colony based Genetic Resource Preservation (NCGRP) (5) Monitor colonies and conduct on observations about threats and in Fort Collins, Colorado, for long-term management activities, if necessary, to defensibility ranks reported in the 1996 cold storage. The NCGRP protocol is to maintain the recovered state in each status survey of this species (TDEC test seed viability every 5 years for colony; and 1996, Appendix I) and information in accession, and MOBOT also tests seed (6) Conduct public education projects. our files concerning protection actions, viability on a periodic basis and collects Each of these recovery actions has such as construction of fences. We new material for accessions every 10 to been accomplished. The Service entered consider 14 of the 16 colonies within 15 years (Albrecht 2008b, pers. comm.). into a cooperative agreement with TDEC DSNAs to be secure. The only While these accessions do not contain in 1986, as authorized by section 6 of exceptions to this determination are seed from every unique colony, they the Act, for the conservation of colonies 2.4 and 2.7, which lie within represent each of the populations of endangered and threatened plant portions of the extensive Cedars of Echinacea tennesseensis. These species, providing a mechanism for Lebanon State Forest DSNA that have accessions provide satisfactory material TDEC to acquire Federal funds that have been threatened by past outdoor should establishment of colonies from supported much of the work described recreational vehicle (ORV) use or are reintroductions or additional here. The State of Tennessee and other generally degraded cedar glade habitat. introductions become necessary in the partners have provided matching funds The State of Tennessee’s Natural Area future, as Baskauf et al. (1994, pp. 184– in order to receive funding from the Preservation Act of 1971 (T.C.A. 11– 186) concluded that there is a low level Service under this agreement. 1701) protects DSNAs from vandalism of genetic differentiation among and forbids removal of endangered and populations of E. tennesseensis and the Recovery Action (1): Continue threatened species from these areas. origin of seeds probably is not a critical Systematic Searches for New Colonies TDEC monitors these sites and protects concern for establishing new There were eight colonies of them as needed through construction of populations. Therefore, we consider this Echinacea tennesseensis known to exist fences or placement of limestone recovery action completed. when the recovery plan was completed boulders to prevent illegal ORV access. (Service 1989, pp. 3–7). TDEC and its We do not consider secure the nine Recovery Action (4): Establish New contractors conducted searches of cedar colonies that exist only on private land Colonies glades, identified through the use of and are not under some form of recovery TDEC (2006, pp. 3–6) reported aerial photography and topographic protection agreement. The introduced flowering stem counts for 21 introduced maps, during the late 1980s through population at the Stones River National colonies, but we have eliminated two of 1990 and found five previously Battlefield DSNA consists of three these from our analysis of the current unknown colonies of Echinacea secured colonies requiring no protective status of Echinacea tennesseensis. One tennesseensis (TDEC 1991, p. 1). Two of management, as access is controlled by of these excluded colonies was these colonies were considered the National Park Service (NPS). The introduced into a privately owned glade additions to the Vine population (TDEC site where these colonies are located well outside of the known range of the 1991, p. 2), or population 3 as described became a DSNA in 2003. species in Marshall County, consists of in the recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. The recovery plan states that only a few vegetative stems, and is of 4–5). One colony was considered an Echinacea tennesseensis will be doubtful viability. The other introduced addition to the Mount View population considered recovered when there are ‘‘at colony that we excluded is located in (TDEC 1991, p. 2), or population 1 of the least five secure wild populations, each Rutherford County, approximately 7 recovery plan (Service 1989, p. 3). A with three self-sustaining colonies of at miles from the nearest E. tennesseensis fourth colony was considered an least a minimal size.’’ There are now 19 population, and is believed to contain addition to the Couchville population secure, self-sustaining colonies of E. hybrids with E. simulata. Hybridization

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES 46640 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

between these two species has not been cumulative leaf length greater than 30 Corps of Engineers (COE) lands to reported at any other site. The number cm (11.8 in.), and seedlings were non- provide long-term protection (TDEC of flowering stems reported from the flowering plants with cumulative leaf 2003, p. 2). While colony 1.2 was monitored colonies during 2005 ranged length less than 30 cm (11.8 in.). reduced in size when the private lands from only 1 to 6,183, and only one of TDEC (unpublished data) monitored where it occurred were developed, the these colonies had fewer than 100 each of the colonies that Drew and colony has increased in size since it was flowering stems (TDEC 2006, pp. 4–5). Clebsch (1995, pp. 62–67) sampled and relocated onto COE lands and a fence An additional introduced colony (2.9) one of the colonies Clebsch (1993, pp. was constructed. TDEC (2006, p. 4) that was not surveyed during 2005, but 9–11) sampled one or more times in the counted 252 flowering stems at colony contained thousands of plants in 2006 years 1998, 2000, 2001, 2004, and 2008, 1.2 in 2005. Colony 1.4 also was (Lincicome 2006, pers. comm.), brings and conducted the first quantitative established on COE lands, near a public the number of extant introduced monitoring of five introduced colonies use area at J. Percy Priest Reservoir, colonies to 20. These 20 colonies were in 2006. TDEC characterized stage using plants grown at Tennessee Tech established at various times since 1970, classes as follows: Adults are plants that University and was estimated to have through the introductions of seed or produce flowering stems; juveniles are consisted of 70–80 plants in 1996 (TDEC transplanted individuals (TDEC 1991, non-flowering plants with leaves greater 1996, Appendix I, p. V). TDEC (2006, p. pp. 3–7; TDEC 1996, Appendix I; than 2 cm (.79 in.) in length; seedlings 5) reported there were 596 flowering Lincicome 2008, pers. com.), often from are non-flowering plants with leaves stems at colony 1.4 in 2005. Each of the an undocumented or mixed origin with less than 2 cm (.79 in.) in length. colonies in the Mount View population respect to the source populations Table 1, above, lists each of the is considered secure, and the available (Hemmerly 1976, p. 81; Hemmerly 1990, populations and associated colonies, the quantitative and qualitative data pp. 1–8; TDEC 1991, pp. 4–8; Clebsch date they were first recorded in the indicate they are self-sustaining. 1993, pp. 8–9). Numerous nurseries Tennessee Natural Heritage Inventory Database (TDEC 2010), the number of The Vesta population (number 2 in have grown E. tennesseensis for the the recovery plan) consisted of two purpose of providing seeds and plants flowering stems observed at the colony in 2005 (TDEC 2006, pp. 4–5), whether known colonies when the recovery plan for establishing new colonies (TDEC was completed (Service 1989, pp. 3–4). 1991, pp. 3–8). Baskauf et al. (1994, pp. they are of natural or introduced origin, This population now consists of eight 184–186) determined that less than 10 and whether we consider them to be colonies primarily located within an percent of the genetic variability of E. secure or self-sustaining. Tables 2 and 3, area of approximately 3 km2 (1.5 mi2) in tennesseensis is distributed among above, present ratios among juvenile Wilson County. Five of these colonies populations and concluded from this and adult stage-classes and estimates of (2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9) were low level of differentiation that the Echinacea tennesseensis mean density introduced. Colony 2.1 occurs primarily origin of seed used in establishing new per square meter that have been in the Vesta Cedar Glade DSNA, with populations probably is not a critical produced from monitoring efforts. approximately 15 percent lying outside consideration. We summarize the The Mount View population (number the DSNA on private lands. Drew and distribution of these introduced 1 in the recovery plan) consisted of a colonies among E. tennesseensis single known colony when the recovery Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated that this populations in the discussion plan was completed (Service 1989, p. 3). colony consisted of 20,900 plants This population now includes two more occupying an area of 1,420 m2 (15,285 concerning recovery action number (5) 2 below. Because 20 new colonies have colonies, both introduced, in addition to ft ) in 1987. TDEC (2006, p. 4) counted been established, we consider this the original colony 1.1, which is located 7,790 flowering stems at this colony in recovery action completed. in Mount View DSNA. These three 2005. The mean ratio of juveniles to colonies are located within an adults for this colony over 6 years of Recovery Action (5): Monitor Colonies approximately 2.5 km2 (1 mi2) area in monitoring is 3.21 (Table 2), and density and Conduct Management Activities, if Davidson County. The total number of estimates (Table 3) have remained Necessary, To Maintain the Recovered flowering stems counted in the Mount comparable to the initial estimate State in Each Colony View population in 2005 was 6,278. In provided by Drew and Clebsch for 1987 Drew and Clebsch (1995, pp. 62–67; 1987, Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 62) (1995, p. 62). Colonies 2.2 and 2.8 are Drew 1991, pp. 9–11) conducted the estimated the size of the population at located entirely within the Vesta Cedar first monitoring of Echinacea colony 1.1 to be 12,000 plants Glade DSNA in glade openings that are tennesseensis during the summer of occupying an area of 830 m2 (8,934 ft2). separated by forested habitat; colony 2.2 1987, in the primary colony of each of TDEC (2006, p. 4) reported 5,430 was reported in the recovery plan to the five populations included in the flowering stems at this site (colony 1.1) have consisted of approximately 5,000 recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 3–7). in 2005. The mean ratio of juveniles to plants occupying an area of For this monitoring effort, all non- adults for this colony over 5 years of approximately 140 m2 (1,500 ft2), in flowering E. tennesseensis were monitoring is 3.45 (Table 2) and density addition to several small clumps that classified as juveniles during quadrat estimates (Table 3) have remained Hemmerly (1976, pp. 81) established sampling. Clebsch (1993, pp. 11–16) comparable to or have exceeded the from seed. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. sampled four additional colonies during initial estimate provided by Drew and VII) estimated this colony occupied an 1992, and provided ratios among life Clebsch (1995, p. 62) for 1987. Colony area of 374 m2 (4,026 ft2) in 1996, and stage-classes and estimates of total 1.2 was discovered on private land in counted 4,274 flowering stems at this individuals for each, but did not 1990 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. III), colony in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 4). estimate mean density per square meter. and Clebsch (1993, p. 18) estimated Colony 2.8 is located in a glade opening, Based on results of demographic there were 9,057 plants, bearing 3,506 approximately one-tenth of a mile research by Drew (1991), Clebsch (1993, flowering heads, occupying an area of southwest of colony 2.2, and TDEC p. 11) modified stage-class definitions as 682 m2 (7,341 ft2) in 1992. The colony (2006, p. 5) counted 2,143 flowering follows: Adults were plants that on private land was bulldozed in 1999. stems at this colony in 2005. Colonies produced flowering stems, juveniles Colony 1.2 now consists of plants 2.3, 2.4, and 2.7 are located in the were non-flowering plants with introduced onto adjacent U.S. Army Cedars of Lebanon State Forest DSNA.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 46641

Colony 2.3 was planted in 1983 with monitoring is 4.54 (Table 2) and density while the plants occupied a larger seeds produced in a Tennessee Valley estimates (Table 3) have remained area—an estimated 1,483 m2 (15,963 Authority greenhouse from Vesta comparable to the initial estimate ft2). TDEC (2006, p. 4) reported 2,529 population stock; in 1996, TDEC (1996, provided by Drew and Clebsch for 1987 flowering stems were present at this Appendix I, p. VIII) observed 50 to 100 (1995, p. 62). Most of colony 3.2 is colony in 2005. TDEC (1996, Appendix plants occupying an area of located in a site recently acquired by I, p. XVII) observed about 50 plants in approximately 15 m2 (161 ft2). TDEC TDEC using a Recovery Land a 1-m2 (11-ft2) area at colony 3.6 in (2006, p. 5) reported there were 139 Acquisition Grant and matching State 1996, and in 2005 there were 157 flowering stems here in 2005. Only one funds for addition to the State’s natural flowering stems counted in this colony. flowering stem was observed at colony areas system and was estimated in the Colony 3.7 was established from seeds 2.4 in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 5). Colony recovery plan to contain as many as planted in 1978 and 1979, on private 2.7 is a small occurrence believed to 50,000 plants (Service 1989, p. 5). Data property owned by a native plant have been introduced, but for which no are summarized here for four element enthusiast. While many plants were reliable data prior to 2005 exist, at occurrences that TDEC tracks and which killed during drought conditions in which time 6 flowering stems were make up this colony. Clebsch (1993, p. 1980, TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XVIII) counted at this site (TDEC 2006, p. 5). 16) estimated a total of 94,537 plants at reported that there were approximately Colony 2.6 was planted at the entrance this colony in 1996, with 29,014 250 plants at this colony in 1985, and to Cedars of Lebanon State Park prior to flowering heads, occupying an area of between 300 and 500 plants in 1996. 1982 and was observed in 1996 to 5,889 m2 (63,389 ft2), and found that the TDEC (2006, p. 4) reported there were include approximately 100 plants ratio of juveniles to adults was 1.94; in 1,705 flowering stems at this colony in (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XI); in 2005 2005 there were 25,956 flowering stems 2005. Colonies 3.8 and 3.9 were there were 252 flowering stems (TDEC (TDEC 2006, p. 4). The portions of the established from seeds planted into two 2006, p. 5). Colony 2.9 was introduced colony that lie entirely or mostly within sites at Cedars of Lebanon State Forest into a powerline right-of-way on private the recently protected lands contained in 1990 and 1991. In 1996, TDEC (1996, land adjacent to Cedars of Lebanon State 24,914 of these flowering stems. Appendix I, p. XIX) counted 452 plants Forest in 1994, and was brought to Colonies 3.3 through 3.7 occur on by surveying eight glades/barrens TDEC’s attention in 2006, at which time private land. Colony 3.3 is located in a within the larger complex where colony there were thousands of plants site that was highly disturbed and 3.8 is located. TDEC (2006, p. 5) (Lincicome 2006, pers. comm.). Of the consisted of 90 plants in 1996 (TDEC reported there were 1,863 flowering four secure colonies (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 1996, Appendix I, p. XIV). This colony stems at colony 3.8 in 2005. TDEC 2.8) in this population, available contained 11 flowering stems in 2005 (1996, Appendix I, p. XX) observed quantitative and qualitative data (TDEC 2006, p. 4), and remains a small approximately 200 to 300 plants demonstrate that three are self- colony of questionable viability today. occupying an estimated area of 51 m2 sustaining. We do not have historic data Colony 3.4 is located in the Gattinger (549 ft2) at colony 3.9 in 1996; in 2005, for colony 2.8, which was first observed Glade and Barrens DSNA, which is there were 2,744 flowering stems in 2003, but the large number of owned by the developers of the counted at this colony (TDEC 2006, p. flowering stems at this colony in 2005 Nashville Super Speedway who donated 5). We have no data prior to 2005 for suggests that it also should be self- a conservation easement to the State of colonies 3.10 and 3.11, both of which sustaining. The total number of Tennessee. Clebsch (1993, p. 16) are located on private land. In 2005, flowering stems counted in the four estimated there were 71,576 plants at TDEC (2006, p. 5) reported there were secure and self-sustaining colonies of colony 3.4 in 1992, with 13,355 5,374 flowering stems at colony 3.10, the Vesta population was estimated to flowering heads. TDEC estimated this which is located near the Nashville be 14,346 in 2005. Colonies that we do colony occupied an area of 2,723 m2 Super Speedway; there were 1,935 not consider secure accounted for 259 (23,310 ft2) in 1996, and reported there flowering stems at colony 3.11. flowering stems in 2005. were 12,979 flowering stems at this Available quantitative and qualitative The Vine population (number 3 in the colony in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 4). The data indicate that the four secure recovery plan) consisted of three known mean ratio of juveniles to adults for this colonies (i.e., 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.9) in colonies at the time the recovery plan colony over 3 years of monitoring is this population are self-sustaining, as was completed (Service 1989, pp. 4–6). 4.78 (Table 2). Clebsch (1993, pp. 9–11) are six of the non-secure colonies (Table This population now consists of 11 did not provide density estimates for 1). The total number of flowering stems colonies located within an area of this colony in 1992; however, density in secured and self-sustaining colonies approximately 17 km2 (7 mi2) in Wilson estimates produced from monitoring of the Vine population was 48,192 in and Rutherford Counties. Three of these conducted by TDEC in 2004 and 2008 2005. Colonies that we do not consider colonies (3.7, 3.8, and 3.9) were are comparable to those generated for secure accounted for 14,616 flowering introduced. Approximately two-thirds other long-term monitoring sites (Table stems in 2005. of the land on which colony 3.1 is 3). While damage from ORV use has The Allvan population (number 4 in located lies within Vine Cedar Glade been observed at this colony in the past the recovery plan) consisted of one DSNA, with the remaining one-third on (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XV), it has known colony (4.1) at the time the private land. Drew and Clebsch (1995, not been noted since the site became a recovery plan was completed; two other p. 62) estimated that colony 3.1 DSNA, and we consider it secure. colonies had been extirpated from this consisted of 20,200 plants occupying an Clebsch (1993, p. 18) estimated a total population (Service 1989, p. 6). This area of 800 m2 (8611 ft2) in 1987. TDEC of 15,769 plants bearing a total of 3,058 population now consists of two (1996, Appendix I, p. XI–XII) reported flowering heads at colony 3.5 in 1992, introduced colonies on public lands, as the plants occupied about 760 m2 in with a ratio of 1.88 juveniles to adults, colony 4.1 has been lost to disturbance. 1996, and counted 7,555 flowering occupying an estimated area of 669 m2 Drew and Clebsch (1995, pp. 62–64) stems at this colony in 2005 (TDEC (7,201 ft2). TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. estimated a total of 3,700 plants at 2006, p. 4). The mean ratio of juveniles XVI) observed that the density of plants colony 4.1 in 1987, occupying an to adults for this colony over 5 years of had decreased at this colony in 1996, estimated area of 470 m2 (5,059 ft2), and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES 46642 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

noted the vegetation at this site differed the only secure and self-sustaining square meter (Table 3). Colony 5.6 from the other colonies probably as a colony in the Allvan population. consisted of approximately 2,000 plants result of human disturbance. TDEC The Couchville population (number 5 occupying an area of 51 m2 (549 ft2) in (1996, Appendix I, p. XXI) noted the in the recovery plan) consisted of a 1996 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXIX– poor condition of Echinacea single known colony spanning XXX); in 2005, there were 846 flowering tennesseensis plants during a site visit approximately eight privately owned stems (TDEC 2006, p. 5). Colony 5.7, for to colony 4.1 in 1996, and observed no tracts when the recovery plan was which no historic monitoring data are plants at this colony in 2005 (TDEC completed (Service 1989, p. 7). This available, is the only naturally occurring 2006, p. 4). The mean ratio of juveniles population now consists of three natural colony at Long Hunter State Park. TDEC to adults for this colony over 4 years of and five introduced colonies, all located (2006, p. 4) counted 17 flowering stems monitoring was 4.52 (Table 2) and within an approximately 2.8-km2 (1.1- here in 2005. Colony 5.8 was density estimates (Table 3) were mi2) area of Davidson and Rutherford established in 2000 at the Fate Sanders comparable to or exceeded the initial Counties on lands owned by the State of Barrens DSNA, located on COE lands at estimate provided by Drew and Clebsch Tennessee (except for colony 5.2, which J. Percy Priest Reservoir. This colony is for 1987 (1995, p. 62), until the colony is on private land). Drew and Clebsch located approximately 3.5 km (2.8 mi) was destroyed sometime after (1995, p. 62) estimated a total of 89,300 southeast of colony 5.3 in the monitoring was conducted during 2004 plants at colony 5.1 in 1987, occupying Couchville population. TDEC planted and before flowering stems were an estimated area of 13,860 m2 (149,189 199 plants into two areas at this colony counted at each colony in 2005. ft2). TDEC (2006, p. 4) reported there in 2000 (Lincicome 2008, pers. comm.) Colonies 4.2 and 4.3 were established were 7,353 flowering stems at this site and counted 101 flowering stems in from seeds and cultivated juveniles in 2005. The mean ratio of juveniles to 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 5). Based on planted on COE lands at J. Percy Priest adults for this colony over 6 years of available qualitative and quantitative Reservoir in the years 1989 through monitoring is 3.87 (Table 2) and density data, we believe that the secure colonies 1991 (TDEC 1991, pp. 5–6), and earthen estimates (Table 3) have remained (5.1, 5.4, 5.6, and 5.8) in the Couchville berms have been constructed at both comparable to the initial estimate population are self-sustaining,. We sites to deter ORV traffic and reduce provided by Drew and Clebsch for 1987 believe that three of the four colonies visibility of these colonies. In 1996, (1995, p. 62). Colony 5.2 is divided we consider not secure are also self- colony 4.2 contained many robust adult between two privately owned sustaining. The total number of plants, but few seedlings and non- properties. The plants in this colony are flowering stems from the Couchville flowering adults, in an area of 32 m2 found in habitats of varying quality, population in secure and self-sustaining (344 ft2) (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. having been subjected to past colonies was 10,150 in 2005. Colonies XXII). In 2005, TDEC reported there disturbance in some places, and in that we do not consider secure were 6,183 flowering stems at colony 1993, vegetative plants were observed accounted for an estimated 3,316 4.2. TDEC first conducted quantitative occupying an area of approximately flowering stems in 2005. monitoring at this colony in 2006, when 1,823 m2 (19,623 ft2) (TDEC 1996, The Stones River National Battlefield the ratio of juveniles to adults they Appendix I, p. XXV). TDEC (2006, p. 4) population (i.e., population 6, not sampled was 4.78 (Table 2). The reported there were 392 flowering stems included in the recovery plan) consists estimated mean density was 11.60 E. at this colony in 2005. Colonies 5.3 of three colonies established through tennesseensis per square meter (Table through 5.6 were established from seed introductions into an area that is now a 3). This secure colony is located in the and juveniles planted at Long Hunter DSNA. Colony 6.1 was established from Elsie Quarterman Cedar Glade DSNA, State Park during 1989 through 1991. seeds introduced by Hemmerly in 1970 on COE lands at J. Percy Priest TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XXVI) (1976, pp. 10, 81) as part of Reservoir, and appears to be self- observed 428 plants at colony 5.3 in investigations into seedling survival sustaining based on the quantitative and 1996, and noted that they were spread under field conditions. This colony qualitative data available. Colony 4.3 is out over a wide area; in 2005, TDEC consists of two groupings of plants, one located near the COE Hurricane Public (2006, p. 4) reported there were 1,607 of which consisted of 3,880 plants and Access Area. In 1996, this colony flowering stems at this colony. TDEC the other of 28 plants in 1995; the consisted of many robust adult plants (1996, Appendix I, p. XXVII) observed colony occupied an area of 39 m2 (420 and abundant juveniles in an area of that a thriving population containing ft2) in 1996 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. about 68 m2 (732 ft2) (TDEC 1996, thousands of individuals had become XXXI). TDEC (2006, p. 4) counted 2,535 Appendix I, p. XXIII). In 2005, TDEC established at colony 5.4 by 1996, and flowering stems at this colony in 2005. (2006, p. 5) counted 385 flowering stems that the plants north of the road TDEC first conducted quantitative at this colony. TDEC (unpublished data) dividing this colony occupied an area of monitoring at colony 6.1 in 2006, when first conducted quantitative monitoring 2,153 m2 (23,175 ft2); in 2005, TDEC the ratio of juveniles to adults they at this colony in 2006, when the ratio of (2006, p. 5) counted 863 and 987 sampled was 5.18 (Table 2). The juveniles to adults they sampled was flowering stems on the north and south estimated mean density was 41.37 11.95 (Table 2). The estimated mean sides of the road, respectively. Colony Echinacea tennesseensis per square density was 19.50 E. tennesseensis per 5.5 consisted of less than 200 total meter (Table 3), but the confidence square meter (Table 3). However, we plants occupying an estimated area of interval at this site was large, reflecting acknowledge that the confidence 53 m2 (570 ft2) in 1996 (TDEC 1996, a high degree of variability among the intervals for the density estimates at Appendix I, pp. XXVIII–XXIX); in 2005, sampled transects, some of which both sites are large, reflecting a high there were 1,300 flowering stems (TDEC contained no plants. Colonies 6.2 and degree of variability among the transects 2006, p. 4). TDEC (unpublished data) 6.3 are thought to have been established that were sampled at each colony. We first conducted quantitative monitoring by a neighbor of the battlefield in the believe that colony 4.3 is self-sustaining; at this colony in 2006, when the ratio of mid-1990s (Hogan 2008, pers. comm.) however, it is vulnerable to impacts juveniles to adults they sampled was and consisted of 134 and 401 plants, from illegal ORV access as noted above. 4.12 (Table 2) and the estimated density respectively, in 1995 (TDEC 1996, Based on available data, colony 4.2 is was 12.03 Echinacea tennesseensis per Appendix I, p. XXXII). In 2005, TDEC

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 46643

(2006, p. 4) counted 237 flowering stems Recovery Action (6): Conduct Public region where the species occurs, or are at colony 6.2 and 852 flowering stems Education Projects familiar with the principles of at colony 6.3. The total number of Echinacea tennesseensis was featured conservation biology. We received flowering stems in the Stones River in newspaper (Paine 2002, p. 6B) and comments from one of the peer National Battlefield population in 2005 magazine (Simpson and Somers 1990, reviewers. We reviewed all comments received was 3,624 (TDEC 2006, 4). Based on pp. 14–16; Campbell 1992, p. 32; Daerr from the peer reviewer and the public available quantitative and qualitative 1999, p. 50) articles to educate the for substantive issues and new data, we believe all colonies in this general public about the species, the information regarding the proposed population are secure and self- cedar glade ecosystem it occupies, and delisting of Echinacea tennesseensis. sustaining. the conservation efforts directed Substantive comments received during Numerous partners are involved in towards them. The Service published the comment period are addressed managing Echinacea tennesseensis ‘‘An Educator’s Guide to the Threatened below and, where appropriate, populations on their lands. TDEC and Endangered Species and incorporated directly into this final rule compared management options at the Ecosystems of Tennessee,’’ which and into the post-delisting monitoring includes instructional materials about Vesta Cedar Glade DSNA, including plan. the cedar glades of middle Tennessee mowing, discing, burning, and Issue 1: One commenter requested and two Federally listed plant species application of selective herbicides for that we address the site quality for the found in the glades, E. tennesseensis colonies that comprise the Allvan removal of grasses (Clebsch 1993, pp. 2– and Astragalus bibullatus (Pyne’s 8). TDEC and TNC have used grazing of population and the growth of these ground-plum) (Service no date, pp. 50– colonies over time compared to other goats, mechanical removal, and 53). TDEC personnel periodically lead herbicide applications to control woody colonies, despite the fact that this guided wildflower walks in the cedar population is not needed to meet the species encroachment on the margins of glades DSNAs and educate the public criteria in the recovery plan that there cedar glade openings at Mount View about E. tennesseensis and other Federal must be five populations with three Glade DSNA (TDEC 2003, pp. 4–9). and State listed plant species during secure and self-sustaining colonies each. TDEC applies prescribed fire or those walks. In 2000, TDEC published This request was made because Drew mechanical removal, as needed and 10,000 copies of an educational poster and Clebsch (1995, p. 64) observed within constraints imposed by locations featuring Tennessee’s rare plants, during surveys conducted in 1987 that within the urban interface, to control including E. tennesseensis. Because the Allvan site, where colony 4.1 was woody species, including the invasive numerous public education projects located, had a much different plant exotic privet (Ligustrum sp.), at many have been conducted, we consider this community assemblage than other DSNAs where E. tennesseensis occurs; recovery action completed. Echinacea tennesseensis sites due to these include Mount View Glade, Vesta Summary of Comments and human disturbance and because the Cedar Glade, Vine Cedar Glade, Cedars Recommendations commenter apparently believed that of Lebanon State Forest Natural Area, colonies 4.2 and 4.3 also were located Gattinger’s Cedar Glade and Barrens, During the open comment period for at this disturbed site. Elsie Quarterman Cedar Glade, Fate the proposed rule (75 FR 48896, August Response: Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 12, 2010), we requested that all Sanders Barrens, and Couchville Cedar 62) concluded that human disturbance interested parties submit comments or Glade and Barrens. TDEC works with had altered the vegetation community at information concerning the proposed the Tennessee Division of Forestry the site where the original colony (4.1) delisting of Echinacea tennesseensis. of the Allvan population was located. (TDF) to ensure that colonies in the We directly notified and requested The dominant species they observed at Cedars of Lebanon State Forest, which comments from the State of Tennessee. the Allvan site (Grindelia lanceolata, includes three DSNAs, receive We contacted all appropriate State and Silphium trifoliatum, and Aster pilosus necessary management and collaborates Federal agencies, county governments, var. priceae) were absent or present in with TDF to implement all prescribed elected officials, scientific low frequency at other sites. Conversely, burns that are conducted on DSNAs. organizations, and other interested the dominant species from the other TDEC also has cooperated with COE on parties and invited them to comment. sites were only present in low frequency construction of fences or earthen berms We also published a newspaper notice and numbers at the site of colony 4.1. around sites at J. Percy Priest Reservoir in The Tennesseean, a newspaper These differences were likely that have been threatened by urban serving the middle Tennessee region attributable to the intensive use that this encroachment and illegal ORV use. The where E. tennesseensis occurs, inviting site, owned by a trucking company, had NPS monitors the introduced public comment. experienced. The portion of the population at the Stones River National As stated in the proposed rule (75 FR property where E. tennesseensis once Battlefield and controls woody plant 48896, August 12, 2010), we accepted occurred was used in the past as a encroachment and vegetation comments for 60 days, ending October discard site for old engine parts and succession in the glade openings where 12, 2010. During the comment period, other assorted scrap materials (TDEC the colonies occur, as necessary. we received comments from two 1996, Appendix I, p. XXI). As noted individuals. above, the colony at this site was Because TDEC and other entities have In accordance with our peer review destroyed prior to flowering stem counts monitored Echinacea tennesseensis policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR in 2005. populations many times since the time 34270), and the Office of Management Colonies 4.2 and 4.3 of the Allvan site of listing and have managed colonies on and Budget’s (OMB) December 16, 2004, were both established on COE lands, in protected lands to minimize threats Final Information Quality Bulletin for distinct sites from colony 4.1, from from vegetation succession and ORV Peer Review, we solicited independent introductions during the years 1989 use, and will continue to do so in the opinions from 4 knowledgeable through 1991. In contrast to the site foreseeable future, we consider this individuals who have expertise with the conditions where colony 4.1 was once recovery action completed. species, who are within the geographic located, TDEC (1996, Appendix I, pp.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES 46644 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

XXI–XXIV) described the habitat at commenter noted that the proposed rule section. Table 1, above, provides a list these sites as ‘‘dry barrens and glades’’ to delist E. tennesseensis reported that of all colonies considered in this rule (colony 4.2) and ‘‘open gravelly glades six colonies were sampled once for the along with our determination of and barrens’’ (colony 4.3), but made no juvenile stage class, in 2006, and that whether each colony is secure, self- observations of atypical composition of the average of these colonies did not sustaining, or both. associated species present at these sites. meet this criterion. This commenter Issue 4: Two commenters raised While we do not have numbers to noted that it was unclear whether these issues related to potential threats specifically address growth rates in sampled colonies that did not meet the associated with climate change, colonies 4.2 and 4.3, in the section self-sustaining criterion were included including possible disruption of above addressing recovery action (5), we in the group of colonies reported in the pollinator services due to potential discuss quantitative monitoring data rule to be self-sustaining, adding that changes in flowering periods and collected at each of these sites in 2006. regular recruitment is required for the pollinator behavior; lack of a persistent Both of these colonies are also included persistence of a population, or in this seed bank to provide resilience to in the Post-delisting Monitoring Plan for case, an introduced colony. The other multiple drought years or extreme Echinacea tennesseensis. commenter noted that one must assume climatic events; and the potential for Issue 2: Two commenters supported that this criterion was applied when increased drought frequency or severity the use of analyzing variability and determining whether to classify a to impact juvenile plants. One of these trends over time in density metrics population as self-sustaining in Table 1 commenters noted the findings of Drew derived from count data as a measure of of the proposed rule. Both commenters and Clebsch (1995) that plants with total population size, rather than using the also requested additional detail leaf length < 30 cm were susceptible to Recovery Plan criterion that minimal concerning how the ratios were derived a higher rate of mortality due to low size for each colony be 15 percent cover that were used to estimate (1) numbers drought tolerance. This commenter also of flowers over 800 square yards of of adults based on counts of flowering pointed out that, according to National suitable habitat. However, one of these stems, and (2) numbers of seedlings Drought Mitigation Center (2010) data, commenters expressed concern that the from estimated numbers of adults, in middle Tennessee experienced drought proposed delisting rule reported only order to yield the estimated numbers of years in 2007 and 2008, including an one census of the total number of individuals that were reported in Table exceptional drought period from August flowering stems along with an 1 of the proposed rule. Specifically, one to September of 2007, and that this extrapolated total number of plants and of the commenters questioned whether drought could have impacted juvenile number of adults (i.e., flowering plants). the multiplier used to calculate the ratio and other stage classes. This commenter noted that ‘‘by was an average calculated across Response: To the extent possible, we address threats related to climate change choosing to report counts from only one monitored colonies, whether multiple in the section Summary of Factors year, annual count fluctuation and years of data were used in calculating Affecting the Species. We do not have sample area size are not considered.’’ this ratio, and whether the accuracy of sufficient data concerning pollinators of This commenter suggested that stem the ratio in estimating population sizes Echinacea tennesseensis, their counts collected by Drew and Clebsch had been field tested. This commenter phenology in relation to phenology of E. (1995) from their sample plots in the also recommended reporting confidence tennesseensis, or potential for changes first census of the species in 1987 could intervals with these estimates to provide to the phenology of either to specifically be used to establish reference densities, a measure of their precision. and that more recent site densities address this comment. However, we calculated from flowering stem counts Response: The Service and TDEC have no specific data to suggest that would be an acceptable substitute for undertook a thorough review of the climate change is currently a threat to E. the objective size criterion provided in monitoring data collected by TDEC and tennesseensis or will be in the the Recovery Plan. reanalyzed those data to produce ratios foreseeable future. We have Response: We have incorporated among juvenile and adult stage-classes incorporated information on drought available quantitative data on density (Table 2, above) and to produce density conditions in Middle Tennessee during estimates and ratios of juveniles to estimates with confidence intervals for 2007 and 2008, as well as data on adults into this final rule. We did not each monitored site (Table 3, above). In monthly departures from normal rainfall use data from the 2005 flowering stem doing so, we found errors in the analysis for the period 1985 through 2010, into counts conducted at all sites (TDEC used to determine ratios of juveniles to this rule in the section Recovery and 2006, pp. 4–5) to estimate flowering adults for the introduced colonies for discuss them in relation to available stem densities, because the area the year 2006. We have incorporated monitoring data. surveyed was not documented during those corrections and provide colony Summary of Factors Affecting the that effort. We agree with the numbers for each colony for which Species commenter that estimating the total these ratios have been calculated (Table number of individuals in a colony based 2, above). We have removed estimates of Section 4 of the Act and its on flowering stem counts from a single numbers of adults and total numbers of implementing regulations (50 CFR part year is not appropriate and have individuals from Table 1 in this rule, as 424) set forth the procedures for listing, removed those estimates from Table 1 in explained above in the Species reclassifying, or removing species from this rule, as explained above in the Information section. While quantitative the Federal Lists of Endangered and Species Information section. data are not available for all colonies to Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Issue 3: Two commenters requested use in determining whether they are ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as more information be presented on the self-sustaining, we believe that including any species or subspecies of status of the Echinacea tennesseensis quantitative data from a representative fish or wildlife or plants, and any populations as it relates to the Recovery sample of colonies combined with distinct vertebrate population segment Plan criterion that defines self- available qualitative data provide an of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when sustaining populations as those in adequate basis for determining whether mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the which there are two juvenile plants for the colonies are self-sustaining, as ‘‘species’’ is determined we then every flowering plant. Specifically, one explained above in the Recovery evaluate whether that species may be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 46645

endangered or threatened because of Factor A. The Present or Threatened entirely or primarily on conservation one or more of the five factors described Destruction, Modification, or lands in either State or Federal in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range ownership. The lone exception to public consider these same five factors in The final rule to list Echinacea ownership of these conservation lands reclassifying or delisting a species. We tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR is the Gattinger Glade DSNA, which is may delist a species according to 50 32604) identified the following habitat managed by TDEC but privately owned CFR 424.11(d) if the best available threats: Habitat loss due to residential and protected under a conservation scientific and commercial data indicate and recreational development and easement. We consider 19 of these that the species is neither endangered succession of cedar glade communities colonies to be secure and self- nor threatened for the following reasons: in which the species occurred. sustaining. Sixteen colonies, all but two of which are secure, are located entirely (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species Losses of cedar glade habitat and or primarily within DSNAs that were has recovered and is no longer colonies of Echinacea tennesseensis to residential development have posed a designated at various times between endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the 1974 and 2009. TDEC manages most of original scientific data used at the time significant threat to E. tennesseensis. At the time of listing, one population of E. these DSNAs, in some cases the species were classified was in error. cooperatively with TDF, for the purpose tennesseensis had been reduced in size of conserving E. tennesseensis and the Under section 3 of the Act, a species due to housing construction and another cedar glades and barrens ecosystem that is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of was destroyed during the construction the species depends on for its survival. extinction throughout all or a of a trailer park. The three extant All but one of these DSNAs lie within ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is occurrences at that time were all located or adjacent to State or Federal ‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become on private lands, one of which was conservation lands that provide endangered within the foreseeable imminently threatened by surrounding complementary conservation benefits by future throughout all or a ‘‘significant residential development. This Davidson maintaining functioning ecosystems portion of its range.’’ The word ‘‘range’’ County occurrence has since been refers to the range in which the species within which these colonies occur and protected as a DSNA. Approximately harboring additional protected colonies currently exists, and the word two-thirds of the Wilson County of E. tennesseensis. ‘‘significant’’ refers to the value of that occurrence that was on public lands is The non-DSNA lands in the Cedars of portion of the range being considered to now a DSNA, and one-third remains on Lebanon State Forest also contain three the conservation of the species. The private lands. The Rutherford County colonies, therefore providing a large, ‘‘foreseeable future’’ is the period of occurrence was located in a gravel protected cedar glade and forest time over which events or effects parking lot of a commercial property ecosystem connected to the Vesta Cedar reasonably can or should be anticipated, and has been destroyed. Since the time Glade, Vine Cedar Glade, and Cedars of or trends extrapolated. A recovered of listing, protection of natural colonies Lebanon State Forest DSNAs. An species is one that no longer meets the on publicly owned conservation lands additional colony is located at the Act’s definition of endangered or and establishment of additional colonies Cedars of Lebanon State Park, which is threatened. Determining whether or not through introductions have effectively adjacent to the Cedars of Lebanon State a species is recovered requires diminished the threat residential Forest. Long Hunter State Park contains consideration of the same five categories development once posed to the survival six colonies and provides a functioning of E. tennesseensis. of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of ecosystem buffer to the Couchville The final listing rule for Echinacea the Act. For species that are already Cedar Glade and Barrens DSNA. COE tennesseensis described recreational listed as endangered or threatened, the lands at J. Percy Priest Reservoir provide development as a threat facing the habitat for three colonies in addition to analysis for a delisting due to recovery Davidson County (i.e., Mount View) must include an evaluation of the the colonies in the Elsie Quarterman population, but did not specifically Cedar Glade and Fate Sanders Barrens threats that existed at the time of listing, address the nature of the recreational DSNAs that lie within these lands. The the threats currently facing the species, development. The Mount View, Allvan, Gattinger Cedar Glade is the only DSNA and the threats that are reasonably likely and Couchville populations occur in on private land that contains a colony to affect the species in the foreseeable close proximity to J. Percy Priest of Echinacea tennesseensis. While this future following the delisting or Reservoir, construction of which was property is not buffered by other public downlisting and the removal of the completed in 1967. It is possible that lands, it lies within a large tract of land Act’s protections. development of recreational facilities owned by the Nashville Super The following analysis examines all following completion of the reservoir Speedway, which has been a partner in five factors currently affecting, or that presented a threat to E. tennesseensis or the conservation of E. tennesseensis. are likely to affect Echinacea cedar glade habitats. However, four of The three colonies at Stones River tennesseensis within the foreseeable the secure and self-sustaining colonies National Battlefield are included among future. In making this final (i.e., colonies 1.2, 1.4, 4.2, and 5.8) are the 16 within DSNAs, and lie within a located within the now-protected lands determination, we have considered all protected buffer provided by NPS lands. buffering the reservoir, three of which We believe the colonies that are scientific and commercial information were designated as Environmentally located in DSNAs or on recently available, which includes information Sensitive Areas in the J. Percy Priest acquired lands that will be added to received during the public comment 2007 Master Plan Update (U.S. Army Tennessee’s natural area system, with period on our proposed delisting rule Corps of Engineers 2007, pp. 3–1—4–3). the exceptions of colonies 2.4 and 2.7, (75 FR 48896, August 12, 2010), Therefore, recreational development no will receive adequate long-term reanalyzed data from monitoring longer poses a threat to the survival of protection and necessary management conducted during 1998 through 2004, E. tennesseensis. to control vegetation succession and and monitoring data collected in 2008 There are now 27 colonies, disturbance from human activities, (TDEC unpublished data). distributed among the six populations of given the statutory protections afforded Echinacea tennesseensis, which occur these lands and TDEC’s demonstrated

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES 46646 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

commitment to protecting lands through vegetation succession as a threat to the a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. These this mechanism and to maintaining the species and the cedar glades it depends plants are also for sale by multiple quality of habitats in the DSNAs. on for its survival. A status survey for nurseries only within Tennessee, thus Colonies 2.4 and 2.7 contain an the species, completed in 1996 (TDEC not requiring a permit under section estimated 1 and 6 flowering stems, 1996, p. 22), did not address this threat 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. TDEC regulates respectively. The lack of long-term in its analysis of factors affecting the commerce of plants listed as endangered protection and management for these survival of the species, but it did by the State of Tennessee through two colonies will not have a significant recommend controlling vegetation issuance of permits for this purpose, as effect on the status of the species, as succession at some sites in the appendix authorized by the Tennessee Rare Plant these two colonies represent less than containing population and site status Protection Act of 1985 (T.C.A. 11–26– one percent of the Vesta population. We reports. TDEC has developed a program 201). There are also at least two expect that the delisting of Echinacea for managing vegetation succession and cultivars of E. tennesseensis, which are tennesseensis would not weaken other threats to cedar glades on DSNAs of hybrid origin, now available for TDEC’s commitment to the conservation inhabited by E. tennesseensis and two interstate commerce and easily found on of these DSNAs, several of which harbor other Federally listed species, and the Internet. We do not believe cultivars one or more Federally listed plant continues to work cooperatively with are a threat to the Tennessee purple species other than E. tennesseensis. We TDF, Tennessee State Parks, and COE to coneflower because planting of these have also identified five colonies on manage potential threats in habitats individuals is not allowed on public public lands outside of DSNAs that we where colonies exist on properties and state owned property where wild consider secure. belonging to these agencies. Further, we populations occur. Illegal ORV activity remains an issue are not aware of any colonies of E. The genus Echinacea has long been for three colonies on public lands, tennesseensis that have been lost to used for medicinal purposes by Native which we have not counted among the vegetation succession. Americans and is commercially 19 secure colonies. TDEC has worked to Summary of Factor A: Because we available as a popular homeopathic reduce this threat in several DSNAs by expect that the lands containing the 19 supplement. However, the primary constructing barbed wire fences and secure and self-sustaining colonies, species used in commercial medicinal barriers using limestone boulders. The which accounted for approximately 83 applications and studied for their COE has also extended efforts in the percent of the total flowering stems medicinal properties do not include E. form of constructing fences or earthen estimated to exist in 2005, will remain tennesseensis (Senchina et al. 2006, p. berms or both near three colonies on permanently protected and will be 1). We are not aware of collections of lands at J. Percy Priest Reservoir to managed to maintain cedar glade habitat this species being taken for this purpose reduce this threat. Damage from ORV and no known colonies have been lost and do not believe this poses a threat to activity was noted by TDEC (1996, to vegetation succession, we find that this species currently or into the Appendix I) at only one of the 9 the present or threatened destruction, foreseeable future. colonies located exclusively on private modification, or curtailment of its Summary of Factor B: Echinacea lands that are not under recovery habitat or range has been effectively tennesseensis and hybrids displaying protection agreements, none of which diminished to the point that it is no the attractive traits of the species are were counted among the 19 secure longer a threat to Echinacea readily available commercially, and colonies in this rule. While illegal ORV tennesseensis. poaching has been observed in the past use remains a concern throughout the at only five colonies, one of which we Factor B. Overutilization for range of Echinacea tennesseensis (TDEC counted as secure in our analysis for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 1996, p. 21 and Appendix I), we do not this delisting rule because this colony Educational Purposes have evidence to suggest that such became a DSNA in 1998, and no activity is occurring at a magnitude that The final rule to list Echinacea evidence of activity has occurred since makes E. tennesseensis likely to become tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR 1996. In addition, E. tennesseensis is not endangered in the foreseeable future. 32604) identified collection for among the primary species of Echinacea Habitat loss or modification in the commercial and recreational purposes used for medicinal applications. form of ORV activity has been observed as a threat to the species. Limited Therefore, we find that overutilization at four colonies (TDEC 1996, Appendix digging, presumably for horticultural for commercial, recreational (i.e., I), and recovery protection agreements purposes, has been observed in the past gardening), scientific, or educational are lacking at nine colonies that exist at five colonies of E. tennesseensis, three purposes is no longer a threat to E. solely on private lands, leaving them (i.e., colonies 5.3, 5.5, and 5.6) of which tennesseensis. vulnerable to habitat disturbance. are located in high visibility areas Factor C. Disease or Predation However, we believe that Echinacea within Long Hunter State Park (TDEC tennesseensis is neither endangered nor 1996, p. 21). We do not consider these The listing rule for Echinacea threatened as a result of habitat loss or three colonies or a fourth (i.e., colony tennesseensis (44 FR 32604) stated that modification because there are 19 secure 3.5) located on private land to be secure light grazing occurred at colony 3.2 but and self-sustaining colonies distributed for the purposes of this rule. We acknowledged that the degree of threat, among six geographically defined consider colony 4.2, where digging has if any, posed by this grazing was populations. Management of these been observed in the past, to be secure uncertain. A robust population of E. colonies to reduce threats to E. because it became a DSNA in 1998, and tennesseensis remains at this site today, tennesseensis and its habitat is no evidence of digging at this site has much of which was recently acquired by coordinated by TDEC in cooperation been recorded since 1996. Echinacea TDEC for addition to Tennessee’s with other partners. Examples of these tennesseensis that originated from natural area system. Deer browse has management activities were provided natural populations, but is now grown been identified as an impact at the three under number (5) in the Recovery from seed or vegetative propagules colonies in Stones River National section. produced in nurseries, is available for Battlefield (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, pp. The listing rule for Echinacea interstate commerce from one nursery XXXI–XXXIII) and at colony 5.5 (TDEC tennesseensis (44 FR 32604) identified under the authority of the Act through 2007, p. 5). However, we have no data

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 46647

to suggest that such browsing currently report any deleterious effects of Counties in Tennessee. Within this threatens these colonies, which have diminished genetic variability, such as ecosystem, E. tennesseensis inhabits persisted since being established by inbreeding depression, that would both xeric (dry) communities, where introductions 10 or more years ago. indicate this factor poses a threat to this there is no soil or soil depth less than Summary of Factor C: Because we species. Baskauf et al. (1994, p. 186) 5 cm (2 in.) and subxeric (moderately have no data to suggest that either documented low levels of genetic dry) communities on soils deeper than grazing or deer browse threaten any variability in E. tennesseensis, but also 5 cm (2 in.). colonies, we find that disease or observed that this species is not devoid Estimates of the effects of climate predation is not a threat to Echinacea of genetic variability and is evidently change using available climate models tennesseensis. well adapted to its cedar glade habitat. lack the geographic precision needed to predict the magnitude of effects at a Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing They noted that given the relatively scale small enough to discretely apply Regulatory Mechanisms large sizes of many of the naturally occurring populations, random genetic to the range of Echinacea tennesseensis. When Echinacea tennesseensis was drift should not erode genetic variability However, data on recent trends and listed, the final rule to list E. in E. tennesseensis very rapidly. They predicted changes for the Southeast tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR suggested that dramatic population United States (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 111– 32604) identified the lack of State fluctuations or extinction and 116) provide some insight for evaluating protections as a threat to the species. colonization events could have occurred the potential threat of climate change to Echinacea tennesseensis is now listed as historically and eroded genetic E. tennesseensis. Since 1970, the endangered by the State of Tennessee variability (Baskauf et al. 1994, p. 186). average annual temperature of the ° and is protected under the Tennessee However, it is possible that this species region has increased by about 2 F, with Rare Plant Protection Act of 1985 might never have possessed high levels the greatest increases occurring during (T.C.A. 11–26–201), which forbids of genetic variability (Walck et al. 2002, winter months. The geographic extent of persons from knowingly uprooting, p. 62). Reduction of genetic diversity areas in the Southeast region affected by digging, taking, removing, damaging, could affect the viability of the moderate to severe spring and summer destroying, possessing, or otherwise introduced colonies, as they could be drought has increased over the past disturbing for any purpose, any subject to losses in genetic variability three decades by 12 and 14 percent, endangered species from private or that result from establishing colonies respectively (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). public lands without the written from a subset of the total genetic These trends are expected to increase. permission of the landowner. While this structure found in the species (i.e., the Rates of warming are predicted to legislation does not forbid the founder effect) (Allendorf and Luikart more than double in comparison to destruction of E. tennesseensis or its what the Southeast has experienced 2007, p. 129). We have no information habitat with landowner permission, since 1975, with the greatest increases concerning the genetic structure of neither does the Act afford such projected for summer months. introduced colonies compared to protection to listed plants. Regardless, Depending on the emissions scenario naturally occurring ones, but this could as discussed in Factor A above, used for modeling change, average be a factor to investigate if introduced destruction, modification, or temperatures are expected to increase by colonies are found to be less stable than curtailment of its habitat or range is no 4.5 °F to 9 °F by the 2080s (Karl et al. natural colonies through future longer a threat. Furthermore, those 2009, pp. 111). While there is monitoring. At this time, however, we colonies located in DSNAs are afforded considerable variability in rainfall do not believe that low genetic additional protection by the State of predictions throughout the region, variability threatens E. tennesseensis. Tennessee’s Natural Area Preservation increases in evaporation of moisture Act of 1971 (T.C.A. 11–1701), which The Intergovernmental Panel on from soils and loss of water by plants in protects DSNAs from vandalism and Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that response to warmer temperatures are forbids removal of State endangered and evidence of warming of the climate expected to contribute to the effect of threatened species from these areas. system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. these droughts (Karl et al. 2009, pp. Summary of Factor D: While it is 30). Numerous long-term climate 112). possible that the State of Tennessee changes have been observed including Despite the observations of Drew and could determine that Echinacea changes in arctic temperatures and ice, Clebsch (1995, p. 66) that seedlings had tennesseensis should be removed from widespread changes in precipitation an approximately 50-percent probability the State’s endangered plant list of amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns of dying during the drought conditions Tennessee if the species is removed and aspects of extreme weather that occurred during their first year of from the Federal List of Endangered and including droughts, heavy precipitation, study, we believe there is biological and Threatened Plants, we believe that the heat waves, and the intensity of tropical historical evidence to suggest that protected status of the lands where the cyclones (IPCC 2007b, p. 7). While Echinacea tennesseensis is well-adapted 19 secure colonies currently exist will continued change is certain, the to endure predicted effects of climate continue to provide adequate regulatory magnitude and rate of change is change. First, Drew and Clebsch (1995, protection for those colonies even if unknown in many cases. Species that p. 66) found that stage-specific mortality State delisting occurs. Therefore, we are dependent on specialized habitat rates during the drought conditions of find that the inadequacy of existing types, that are limited in distribution, or their first year of study for non- regulatory mechanisms is no longer a that have become restricted to the reproductive E. tennesseensis plants threat to E. tennesseensis. extreme periphery of their range will be with a cumulative leaf length greater most susceptible to the impacts of than 30 cm (12 in) (i.e., non-seedling, Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade climate change. As stated above, vegetative plants) and plants that were Factors Affecting Its Continued Echinacea tennesseensis is only found reproductively active ranged from 17 to Existence in limestone barrens and cedar glades 31 percent, considerably lower than TDEC (1996, p. 2) identified low habitats of the Central Basin, Interior rates observed in seedlings. Second, levels of genetic variability in Echinacea Low Plateau Physiographic Province, in Hemmerly (1976, p. 12) found that tennesseensis as a threat but did not Davidson, Rutherford, and Wilson mature plants possessed several roots

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES 46648 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

averaging 38.4 cm (15.1 in.) length and vulnerability to variability in use has been observed in the past and extending an average depth of 23.1 cm demographic vital rates caused by remains unaddressed at four colonies (9.1 in.) into the soil, often branching increased variability in climatic (i.e., colonies 2.4, 3.6, 3.8, and 4.3) on horizontally after reaching an patterns, Morris et al. (2008, p. 22) and publicly and privately owned lands impenetrable rock layer. These Dalgleish et al. (2010, p. 216) concluded harboring E. tennesseensis, these four observations suggest that while that longer-lived species should be less colonies accounted for only 2 percent of seedlings face higher risks of mortality influenced by climate-driven increases the species’ total distribution in 2005. to drought conditions, this species in demographic variability. Further, Most of the largest colonies are located possesses biological characteristics that predicted climate changes for the in DSNAs and are protected from this increase drought resistance in later life- Southeast could, similar to what is threat by fences or other barriers that history stages. That non-seedling life believed to have taken place during the TDEC has constructed and maintained. stages of E. tennesseensis are more Hypsithermal Interval (Delcourt et al. At the time the 1989 recovery plan was resilient to drought than seedlings is 1986, p. 135), lead to an expansion of written, there were five extant supported by Drew and Clebsch’s (1995, openings within forested areas of populations ranging in size from p. 67) observation of demographic middle Tennessee, potentially approximately 3,700 to 89,000 plants patterns in flowering individuals. increasing the area occupied by cedar and consisting of one to three colonies During 1988, 41 percent of the plants glades communities. This presumably each (Clebsch 1988, p. 14; Service 1989, that they observed flowering during would increase the amount of suitable p. 2). There was an estimated total of 1987 failed to do so, presumably habitat available for E. tennesseensis. 146,000 individual plants in 1989 (Drew influenced by drought. However, 68 Based on these factors and the fact that and Clebsch 1995, p. 62). Recovery percent of those plants that failed to we have no evidence that climate efforts have secured habitat for 19 flower during 1988 produced flowers changes observed to date have had any colonies that are self-sustaining and again during 1989, when annual rainfall adverse impact on E. tennesseensis or distributed among six geographically levels increased. This ability to vary its habitat, we do not believe that defined populations. These 19 secured flower production in relation to annual climate change is a threat to E. colonies accounted for 88,773 flowering rainfall levels, combined with its tennesseensis now or within the stems in 2005, or approximately 83 apparently long-lived habit (Baskauf foreseeable future. percent of the flowering stems observed; 1993, p. 37), should enable E. Summary of Factor E: Because (1) whereas, colonies that we do not tennesseensis to remain viable through management activities take place to consider secure accounted for 18,576 periods of drought. prevent the loss of 19 secure Echinacea flowering stems, or approximately 17 Studies examining the influence of tennesseensis colonies, (2) 31 colonies percent of the flowering stems observed genetic, ecological, and physiological are considered self-sustaining, as (TDEC 2006, pp. 4–5). The number of factors on the distribution of Echinacea measured by persistence and secured plants and colonies is adequate tennesseensis have not found sufficient demographic stability over time (despite to ensure that Factor A is no longer a differences between this species and low levels of genetic variation within threat to the species overall. Thus, more widespread congeners to explain the species), (3) there is biological and destruction and modification of habitat its endemism in the cedar glades of historical evidence to suggest that E. from ORV use is not a threat to the middle Tennessee based on these factors tennesseensis is well-adapted to endure species throughout all its range now or alone (Baskin et al. 1997, p. 385; predicted effects of climate change, and into the foreseeable future. Baskauf and Eickmeier 1994, p. 963; (4) we have no evidence that climate The final rule that listed Echinacea Snyder et al. 1994, p. 64). Rather, it has changes observed to date have had any tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR been suggested that historical and adverse impact on E. tennesseensis or 32604) identified the overuse of this ecological factors contributed to the its habitat, we find that other natural or species for commercial or scientific (i.e., evolution of this species and its manmade factors considered here are no medicinal) purposes as a potential subsequent restriction to cedar glade longer a threat to E. tennesseensis. Post threat to this species. This threat has not habitats in middle Tennessee (Baskin et delisting monitoring will also afford an materialized, and we do not believe it al. 1997, p. 385). Baskin et al. (1997, pp. opportunity to monitor the impacts of will in the future due to the emphasis 390–391) suggested that an ancestral any natural events that occur, such as a on use of three other species from the form of E. tennesseensis migrated to and drought similar to the one in 2007 and genus Echinacea for this purpose. became established in middle 2008, for five growing seasons to ensure Neither do livestock grazing, as Tennessee during the Hypsithermal that E. tennesseensis no longer requires identified in the listing rule, nor browse Interval (i.e., the period of greatest post- protection as a listed species. by herbivores threaten E. tennesseensis. glacial warming, ca. 8,000 to 5,000 years The State of Tennessee enacted the Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis before present), and that as temperatures Rare Plant Protection Act of 1985, became cooler, the only members of this We have carefully assessed the best addressing the inadequacy of existing ancestral taxon that survived were those scientific and commercial information regulatory mechanisms for protecting growing in the cedar glades of the region available regarding the threats faced by this species at the time it was listed. —i.e., the plants that eventually gave Echinacea tennesseensis in developing Should the State of Tennessee remove rise to E. tennesseensis. this rule. As identified above, site Echinacea tennesseensis from its List of While predictions of increased protection and habitat management Endangered Plants, we believe that the drought frequency, intensity, and efforts by TDEC, working cooperatively protected status of the lands where the duration suggest that seedling survival with TDF, TNC, COE, the Service, and 19 secure colonies currently exist will could be a limiting factor for Echinacea private landowners, has reduced habitat continue to provide adequate regulatory tennesseensis, the species possesses loss from residential and recreational protection for those colonies. Also, other biological traits (i.e., long life development so that it is no longer a TDEC’s program for managing span, interannual reproductive threat. Potential effects of ORV use, vegetation succession and other threats variability) to provide resilience to this illegal and otherwise, in habitats to cedar glade habitats on DSNAs threat. In their analyses of life-history containing colonies of E. tennesseensis inhabited by E. tennesseensis and their traits in relation to potential remain. While disturbance from ORV cooperative efforts with TDF, Tennessee

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 46649

State Parks, and COE to manage threats consider whether there are any individuals estimated to exist in 2005. in habitats where colonies exist on significant portions of its range that are Sixteen additional colonies account for properties under their jurisdictions have in danger of extinction or likely to the remaining 17 percent of the total been effective in maintaining habitats in become endangered. A portion of a individuals estimated to exist in 2005 the absence of disturbances from ORV species’ range is significant if it is part and are not considered secure. However, activity. of the current range of the species and we do not consider these unsecured Baskauf et al. (1994, p. 186) is important to the conservation of the colonies to be a significant portion of documented low levels of genetic species as evaluated based upon its the range of this species because these variability in Echinacea tennesseensis, representation, resiliency, or colonies provide no unique or but also observed that this species is not redundancy. biologically significant function that is devoid of genetic variability and is If we identify any portions of a not provided by the 19 secured and self- evidently well adapted to its cedar glade species’ range that warrant further sustaining colonies. habitat. They noted that given the consideration, we then determine In conclusion, major threats to relatively large sizes of many of the whether in fact the species is Echinacea tennesseensis have been naturally occurring populations, endangered or threatened in any reduced, managed, or eliminated. random genetic drift should not erode significant portion of its range. Although the impacts to E. genetic variability in E. tennesseensis Depending on the biology of the species, tennesseensis habitat are fairly uniform very rapidly. We do not believe that low its range, and the threats it faces, it may throughout the range of the species, they genetic variability threatens E. be more efficient for the Service to are more pronounced on privately tennesseensis now or within the address the significance question first owned lands where the species occurs. foreseeable future. and in others the status question first. However, we do not consider these Based on biological evidence and Thus, if the Service determines that a unsecured colonies to be a significant historical factors discussed above in portion of the range is not significant, portion of the range of this species. relation to the potential threat of climate the Service need not determine whether Therefore, we have determined that E. change, and the fact that we have no the species is endangered or threatened tennesseensis is not in danger of evidence that climate changes observed there. If the Service determines that the becoming extinct throughout all or a to date have had any adverse impact on species is not endangered or threatened significant portion of its range nor is it Echinacea tennesseensis or its habitat, in a portion of its range, the Service likely to become endangered now or we do not believe that climate change is need not determine if that portion is within the foreseeable future throughout a threat to E. tennesseensis now or significant. all or any significant portion of its within the foreseeable future. For Echinacea tennesseensis, we range. On the basis of this evaluation, With respect to Echinacea applied the process described above to we believe E. tennesseensis no longer tennesseensis, we have sufficient determine whether any portions of the requires the protection of the Act, and evidence (see Summary of Factors range warranted further consideration. we remove E. tennesseensis from the Affecting the Species section above) to The potential threats identified above Federal List of Endangered and show that all of the threats identified at are fairly uniform throughout the range Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)). or since the time of listing are no longer of the species; however, they are more significant threats to the species, and are pronounced on privately owned lands Effect of This Rule not likely to become threats in the where the species occurs. As discussed This rule will revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) foreseeable future. We believe that the above, a portion of a species’ range is to remove Echinacea tennesseensis from 19 secure, self-sustaining colonies significant if it is part of the current the List of Endangered and Threatened distributed among six populations are range of the species and is important to Plants. Because no critical habitat was secure for the foreseeable future from the conservation of the species because ever designated for this species, this the threats currently affecting the it contributes meaningfully to the rule will not affect 50 CFR 17.96. species and those identified at the time representation, resiliency, or The Act and its implementing of listing. These 19 colonies are located redundancy of the species. The regulations set forth a series of general on protected conservation lands, the contribution must be at a level such that prohibitions and exceptions that apply long-term management of which we its loss would result in a decrease in the to all endangered plants. The believe precludes threats due to ability to conserve the species. While prohibitions under section 9(a)(2) of the residential or recreational development there is some variability in the habitats Act make it illegal for any person and succession of cedar glade occupied by E. tennesseensis across its subject to the jurisdiction of the United communities for the foreseeable future. range, the basic ecological components States to import or export, transport in Based on the analysis above and given required for the species to complete its interstate or foreign commerce in the the reduction in threats, Echinacea life cycle are present throughout the course of a commercial activity, sell or tennesseensis does not currently meet habitats occupied by the six offer for sale in interstate or foreign the Act’s definition of endangered in populations. No specific location within commerce, remove and reduce that it is not in danger of extinction the current range of the species provides Echinacea tennesseensis to possession throughout all of its range, nor the a unique or biologically significant from areas under Federal jurisdiction, or definition of threatened in that it is not function that is not found in other remove, cut, dig up, or damage or likely to become endangered in the portions of the range. The currently destroy E. tennesseensis on any other foreseeable future throughout all its occupied range of E. tennesseensis area in knowing violation of any State range. encompasses approximately 400 km2 law or regulation such as a trespass law. (154 mi2) in Davidson, Rutherford, and Section 7 of the Act requires that Significant Portion of the Range Wilson Counties, Tennessee. We have Federal agencies consult with us to Analysis determined that 19 secure and self- ensure that any action authorized, Having determined that Echinacea sustaining colonies presently are funded, or carried out by them is not tennesseensis does not meet the distributed among the six populations of likely to jeopardize the species’ definition of endangered or threatened E. tennesseensis, which accounted for continued existence. This rule will throughout its range, we must next approximately 83 percent of the total revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES 46650 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(delist) E. tennesseensis from the implementation schedule, including ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations Federal List of Endangered and timing and responsible parties. with Native American Tribal Threatened Plants and these Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive Required Determinations prohibitions would no longer apply. Order 13175, and the Department of Delisting E. tennesseensis is expected to Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we have positive effects in terms of OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, readily acknowledge our responsibility increasing management flexibility by which implement provisions of the to communicate meaningfully with State and Federal governments. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. recognized Federal Tribes on a Post-Delisting Monitoring 3501 et seq.), require that Federal government-to-government basis. We agencies obtain approval from OMB have determined that there are no Tribal Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us before collecting information from the lands affected by this rule. to monitor for at least 5 years species public. The OMB regulations at 5 CFR that are delisted due to recovery. Post- References Cited 1320.3(c) define a collection of delisting monitoring refers to activities information as the obtaining of A complete list of references cited is undertaken to verify that a species information by or for an agency by available on http://www.regulations.gov delisted due to recovery remains secure means of identical questions posed to, under docket number FWS–R4–ES– from the risk of extinction after the or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or 2010–0059. protections of the Act no longer apply. disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 The primary goal of post-delisting Author or more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR monitoring is to monitor the species so 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more that its status does not deteriorate, and The primary author of this document persons’’ refers to the persons to whom if a decline is detected, to take measures is Geoff Call, Tennessee Ecological a collection of information is addressed to halt the decline so that proposing it Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER by the agency within any 12-month as endangered or threatened is not again INFORMATION CONTACT). period. For purposes of this definition, needed. If at any time during the employees of the Federal government List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 monitoring period, data indicate that are not included. This rule and our final protective status under the Act should Endangered and threatened species, Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan do not be reinstated, we can initiate listing Exports, Imports, Reporting and contain any new collections of procedures, including, if appropriate, recordkeeping requirements, information that require approval by Transportation. emergency listing. OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly Act. This rule will not impose Regulation Promulgation requires cooperation with the States in recordkeeping or reporting requirements development and implementation of on State or local governments, Accordingly, we hereby amend part post-delisting monitoring programs, but individuals, businesses, or 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of we remain responsible for compliance organizations. An agency may not the Code of Federal Regulations, as set with section 4(g) and, therefore, must conduct or sponsor, and a person is not forth below: remain actively engaged in all phases of required to respond to, a collection of PART 17—[AMENDED] post-delisting monitoring. We also seek information unless it displays a active participation of other entities that currently valid OMB control number. are expected to assume responsibilities ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 for the species’ conservation after National Environmental Policy Act continues to read as follows: delisting. In August 2008, TDEC agreed We have determined that we do not Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. to be a cooperator in the post-delisting need to prepare an environmental 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– monitoring of E. tennesseensis. assessment or environmental impact 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. We have finalized a Post-Delisting statement, as defined in the National § 17.12 [Amended] Monitoring Plan (Plan) for Echinacea Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 tennesseensis (USFWS 2011, entire). U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in connection with ■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the The Plan: (1) Summarizes the species’ regulations adopted pursuant to section entry for ‘‘Echinacea tennesseensis’’ status at the time of delisting; (2) defines 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We under ‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’ from thresholds or triggers for potential published a notice outlining our reasons the List of Endangered and Threatened monitoring outcomes and conclusions; for this determination in the Federal Plants. (3) lays out frequency and duration of Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR Dated: July 21, 2011. monitoring; (4) articulates monitoring 49244). methods, including sampling Gregory E. Siekaniec, considerations; (5) outlines data Government-to-Government Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife compilation and reporting procedures Relationship With Tribes Service. and responsibilities; and (6) depicts a In accordance with the President’s [FR Doc. 2011–19674 Filed 8–2–11; 8:45 am] post-delisting monitoring memorandum of April 29, 1994, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:09 Aug 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES