[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46632-46650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19674]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059; 92220-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018-AW26


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of 
Echinacea tennesseensis (Tennessee Purple Coneflower) From the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; availability of final post-delisting monitoring 
plan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), are 
removing the plant Echinacea tennesseensis (commonly referred to as 
Tennessee purple coneflower) from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants. This action is based on a thorough review of the best 
scientific and commercial data available, which indicate that this 
species has recovered and no longer meets the definition of threatened 
or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). Our review of the status of this species shows that populations 
are stable, threats are addressed, and adequate regulatory mechanisms 
are in place so that the species is not currently, and is not likely to 
again become, an endangered species within the foreseeable future in 
all or a significant portion of its range. Finally, we announce the 
availability of the final post-delisting monitoring plan for E. 
tennesseensis.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 2, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the post-delisting monitoring plan are available 
by request from the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at: http://www.fws.gov/cookeville/ and http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary E. Jennings, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field 
Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501 (telephone 931/528-6481; 
facsimile 931/528-7075). Persons who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800/877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal Actions

    Section 12 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directed the 
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on those 
plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct. On July 1, 
1975, the Service published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 
27824) accepting the Smithsonian report as a petition to list taxa 
named therein under section 4(c)(2) [now 4(b)(3)] of the Act and 
announced our intention to review the status of those plants. Echinacea 
tennesseensis was included in that report (40 FR 27873). Tennessee 
purple coneflower is the common name for E. tennesseensis; however, we 
will primarily use the scientific name of this species throughout this 
final rule.
    On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (41 FR 24524) to designate approximately 1,700 vascular plant 
species, including Echinacea tennesseensis, as endangered under section 
4 of the Act. On June 6, 1979, we published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (44 FR 32604) designating E. tennesseensis as endangered. The 
final rule identified the following threats to E. tennesseensis: Loss 
of habitat due to residential and recreational development; collection 
of the species for commercial or recreational purposes; grazing; no 
State law protecting rare plants in Tennessee; and succession of cedar 
glade communities in which E. tennesseensis occurred.
    On February 14, 1983, we published the Tennessee Coneflower 
Recovery Plan (Service 1983, 41 pp.), a revision of which we published 
on November 14, 1989 (Service 1989, 30 pp.). On September 21, 2007, we 
initiated a 5-year status review of this species (72 FR 54057). On 
August 12, 2010, we published a proposed rule to remove Echinacea 
tennesseensis from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 
provided notice of the availability of a post-delisting monitoring 
plan, and opened a 60-day public comment period (75 FR 48896).

Species Information

    A member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae), Echinacea 
tennesseensis is a perennial herb with a long, fusiform (i.e., 
thickened toward the middle and tapered towards either end), blackened 
root. In late summer, the species bears showy purple flower heads on 
one-to-many hairy branches. Linear to lance-shaped leaves up to 20 
centimeters (cm; 8 inches (in.)) long and 1.5 cm (0.6 in.) wide arise 
from the base of E. tennesseensis and are beset with coarse hairs, 
especially along the margins. The ray flowers (i.e., petals surrounding 
the darker purple flowers of the central disc) are pink to purple and 
spread horizontally or arch slightly forward from the disc to a length 
of 2-4 cm (0.8-1.8 in.).
    The following description of this species' life history is 
summarized from Hemmerly (1986, pp. 193-195): Seeds are shed from 
plants during fall and winter and begin germinating in early March of 
the following year, producing numerous seedlings by late March. Most of 
the seedling growth occurs during the first 6 or 7 weeks of the first 
year, during which plants will grow to a height of 2-3 cm (0.8-1.2 in) 
or less. Plants remain in a rosette stage and root length increases 
rapidly during these weeks. Plants can reach sexual maturity by the 
middle of their second growing season and only small losses in seed 
viability have been observed after a period of 5 years in dry storage 
(Hemmerly 1976, p. 17). However, Baskin and Baskin (1989, p. 66) 
suggest that Echinacea tennesseensis might not form persistent seed 
banks, based on results of field germination trials. Individuals of E. 
tennesseensis can live up to at least 6 years, but the maximum lifespan 
is probably much longer (Baskauf 1993, p. 37).
    Echinacea tennesseensis was first collected in 1878 in Rutherford 
County, Tennessee, by Dr. A. Gattinger and later described by Beadle 
(1898, p. 359) as Brauneria tennesseensis on the basis of specimens 
collected by H. Eggert in 1897 from ``a dry, gravelly hill'' near the 
town of LaVergne. Fernald (1900, pp. 86-87) did not accept Beadle's 
identification of B. tennesseensis as a distinct species, instead he 
merged it with the more widespread E. angustifolia. This treatment was 
upheld by many taxonomists until McGregor (1968, pp. 139-141) 
classified the taxon as E. tennesseensis (Beadle) Small, based on 
examination of materials from collections discussed above and from 
collections by R. McVaugh in 1936. As McGregor (1968, p. 141) was 
unable to locate any plants while conducting searches during the months 
of June through August, 1959-1961, he concluded that the species was 
very rare or possibly extinct in his monograph of the genus Echinacea. 
The species went unnoticed until its rediscovery in a cedar glade in 
Davidson County as reported by Baskin et al. (1968, p. 70), and 
subsequently in Wilson County by Quarterman and Hemmerly (1971, pp. 
304-305), who also noted that the area

[[Page 46633]]

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

[[Page 46634]]

intervals for each monitored site (Table 3).
    Table 1 in the proposed rule to delist Echinacea tennesseensis (75 
FR 48896, August 12, 2010) provided estimates of the numbers of 
individuals in each colony, which were produced based on relationships 
reported by TDEC (2006, p. 2) between numbers of flowering stems and 
other demographic classes. Table 1 is revised in this final rule to 
report only the numbers of flowering stems that were counted at each 
natural and introduced colony during 2005. We removed the estimates of 
numbers of adults and total numbers of plants that appeared in the 
proposed rule because those estimates were based on ratios among stage 
classes that were calculated using data from a single year, in which 
the ratio of other stage classes to adults was the highest observed 
during any year of monitoring for E. tennesseensis, and those data were 
only from naturally occurring colonies.

 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.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Year First                     Self-Sustaining     Flowering
           Population               Population name      Colony No.        EO No.           Ownership             Origin           observed       Secure  Y/N           Y/N            stems
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................  Mount View.........             1.1             001  TDEC-DNA\a\........  Natural...........            1963               Y                Y            5,430
                                                                  1.2             022  COE\b\.............  Introduced........            1990               Y                Y              252
                                                                  1.4             031  COE................  Introduced........            1989               Y                Y              596
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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  TDF\c\ (DSNA\d\)...  Introduced........            1983               Y                Y              139
                                                                  2.4             039  TDF (DSNA).........  Introduced........            1983               N                N                1
                                                                 *2.6             040  TDEC-SP............  Introduced........            1982               N                Y              252
                                                                  2.7             048  TDF (DSNA).........  Introduced........            2003               N                N                6
                                                                  2.8             050  TDEC-DNA...........  Natural...........            2003               Y                Y            2,143
                                                                 +2.9             053  Private............  Introduced........            2006               N                Y              n/a
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................  ...................  ..............  ..............  ...................  ..................  ..............  ...............  ...............          14,605
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...............................  Vine...............            *3.1             005  TDF (DSNA)/private.  Natural...........            1979               Y                Y            7,555
                                                                 *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 (DSNA).....  Natural...........            1990               Y                Y           12,979
                                                                  3.5             013  Private............  Natural...........            1989               N                Y            2,529
                                                                  3.6             018  Private............  Natural...........            1989               N                Y              157
                                                                  3.7             007  Private............  Introduced........            1979               N                Y            1,705
                                                                 *3.8             030  TDF................  Introduced........            1990               N                Y            1,863
                                                                  3.9             036  TDF................  Introduced........            1989               Y                Y            2,744
                                                                 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 (DSNA).........  Introduced........            1989               Y                Y            6,183
                                                                 *4.3             047  COE................  Introduced........            1989               N                Y              385
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  ...................  ..............  ..............  ...................  ..................  ..............  ...............  ...............           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............  Introduced........            1985               N                Y            1,607
                                                                  5.4             035  TDEC-SP............  Introduced........            1991               Y                Y              863
                                                                  5.4             026  TDEC-SP............  Introduced........            1989               Y                Y              987
                                                                 *5.5             025  TDEC-SP............  Introduced........            1987               N                Y            1,300

[[Page 46635]]

 
                                                                  5.6             032  TDEC-SP............  Introduced........            1989               Y                Y              846
                                                                  5.7             008  TDEC-SP............  Natural...........            1981               N                N               17
                                                                  5.8             049  COE (DSNA).........  Introduced........            2000               Y                Y              101
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................  ...................  ..............  ..............  ...................  ..................  ..............  ...............  ...............          13,466
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6...............................  Stones River                   *6.1             009  NPS \e\ (DSNA).....  Introduced........            1970               Y                Y            2,535
                                   National
                                   Battlefield.
                                                                  6.2             028  NPS (DSNA).........  Introduced........            1995               Y                Y              237
                                                                  6.3             029  NPS (DSNA).........  Introduced........            1991               Y                Y              852
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................  ...................  ..............  ..............  ...................  ..................  ..............  ...............          Totals            3,624
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Grand Totals............  ...................  ..............  ..............  ...................  ..................  ..............  ...............  ...............         107,349
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
             Origin               Colony  EO No. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   No.             Mean    Mean   95% CI   Mean   95% CI   Mean   95% CI   Mean   95% CI   Mean   95% CI   Mean   95% 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  ......  ......

[[Page 46636]]

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

    Natural colonies, or those not known to have been established 
through introductions, included 83,895 flowering stems in 2005 (TDEC 
2006, p. 6). Introduced colonies, excluding the two mentioned above, 
accounted for 23,454 flowering stems (TDEC 2006, p. 6). Natural 
colonies constituted approximately 78 percent of the total flowering 
stems and introduced colonies approximately 22 percent. In this rule, 
we use the colony numbers reported by TDEC (1996, Appendix I) and have 
sequentially assigned additional colony numbers to those which have 
been discovered since that report was issued. In some instances, there 
are gaps evident in the sequence of colony numbers discussed, 
representing colonies that have been documented in the past but were 
either extirpated or of unknown status at the time of this rule.

Recovery

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

[[Page 46637]]

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

[[Page 46638]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AU11.012

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

[[Page 46639]]

I, TDEC 2010) for all colonies documenting whether they have persisted 
over time, changed dramatically in abundance, or are threatened by 
natural or human-caused factors, are adequate for judging whether the 
colonies should be considered self-sustaining. Using these data we have 
determined that 31 out of the total 35 colonies are self-sustaining, 19 
of which are the colonies described above as secure. We discuss the 
available data for each colony below under the subheading Recovery 
Action (5): Monitor colonies and conduct management activities, if 
necessary, to maintain the recovered state in each colony.
    The current recovery plan identifies six primary actions necessary 
for recovering Echinacea tennesseensis:
    (1) Continue systematic searches for new colonies;
    (2) Secure each colony;
    (3) Provide a seed source representative of each natural colony;
    (4) Establish new colonies;
    (5) Monitor colonies and conduct management activities, if 
necessary, to maintain the recovered state in each colony; and
    (6) Conduct public education projects.
    Each of these recovery actions has been accomplished. The Service 
entered into a cooperative agreement with TDEC in 1986, as authorized 
by section 6 of the Act, for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened plant species, providing a mechanism for TDEC to acquire 
Federal funds that have supported much of the work described here. The 
State of Tennessee and other partners have provided matching funds in 
order to receive funding from the Service under this agreement.

Recovery Action (1): Continue Systematic Searches for New Colonies

    There were eight colonies of Echinacea tennesseensis known to exist 
when the recovery plan was completed (Service 1989, pp. 3-7). TDEC and 
its contractors conducted searches of cedar glades, identified through 
the use of aerial photography and topographic maps, during the late 
1980s through 1990 and found five previously unknown colonies of 
Echinacea tennesseensis (TDEC 1991, p. 1). Two of these colonies were 
considered additions to the Vine population (TDEC 1991, p. 2), or 
population 3 as described in the recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 4-5). 
One colony was considered an addition to the Mount View population 
(TDEC 1991, p. 2), or population 1 of the recovery plan (Service 1989, 
p. 3). A fourth colony was considered an addition to the Couchville 
population (TDEC 1991, p. 3), or population 5 of the recovery plan 
(Service 1989, p. 7). The fifth colony was smaller, not in a natural 
setting, and not assigned to any of the recovery plan populations in 
the TDEC report (1991, p. 2). Other colonies have been discovered 
during the course of surveys conducted in the cedar glades of middle 
Tennessee, and the number of extant natural colonies now totals 15. A 
summary of the currently known populations (as well as the natural and 
introduced colonies they are comprised of) is provided in Table 1 
above, and in the discussion concerning recovery action number (5). 
Because systematic searches for new colonies have been conducted since 
the completion of the recovery plan and have led to the discovery of 
previously unknown colonies, we consider this recovery action to be 
completed.

Recovery Action (2): Secure Each Colony

    We have assessed the security of each Echinacea tennesseensis 
colony based on observations about threats and defensibility ranks 
reported in the 1996 status survey of this species (TDEC 1996, Appendix 
I) and information in our files concerning protection actions, such as 
construction of fences. We consider 14 of the 16 colonies within DSNAs 
to be secure. The only exceptions to this determination are colonies 
2.4 and 2.7, which lie within portions of the extensive Cedars of 
Lebanon State Forest DSNA that have been threatened by past outdoor 
recreational vehicle (ORV) use or are generally degraded cedar glade 
habitat. The State of Tennessee's Natural Area Preservation Act of 1971 
(T.C.A. 11-1701) protects DSNAs from vandalism and forbids removal of 
endangered and threatened species from these areas. TDEC monitors these 
sites and protects them as needed through construction of fences or 
placement of limestone boulders to prevent illegal ORV access. We do 
not consider secure the nine colonies that exist only on private land 
and are not under some form of recovery protection agreement. The 
introduced population at the Stones River National Battlefield DSNA 
consists of three secured colonies requiring no protective management, 
as access is controlled by the National Park Service (NPS). The site 
where these colonies are located became a DSNA in 2003.
    The recovery plan states that Echinacea tennesseensis will be 
considered recovered when there are ``at least five secure wild 
populations, each with three self-sustaining colonies of at least a 
minimal size.'' There are now 19 secure, self-sustaining colonies of E. 
tennesseensis distributed among six populations (see Table 1 above), 
fulfilling the recovery plan intentions of establishing a sufficient 
number and distribution of secure populations and colonies to remove 
the risk of extinction for this species within the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, we consider this recovery action completed.

Recovery Action (3): Provide a Seed Source Representative of Each 
Natural Colony

    The Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT), an affiliate institution of 
the Centers for Plant Conservation (CPC), collected accessions of seeds 
from each of the six populations currently in existence during 1994 
(Albrecht 2008a pers. comm.) and from four of those populations during 
2010 (Albrecht 2010, pers. comm.). This collection is maintained 
according to CPC guidelines (Albrecht 2008b, pers. comm.). Five of the 
accessions taken by MOBOT were provided to the National Center for 
Genetic Resource Preservation (NCGRP) in Fort Collins, Colorado, for 
long-term cold storage. The NCGRP protocol is to test seed viability 
every 5 years for accession, and MOBOT also tests seed viability on a 
periodic basis and collects new material for accessions every 10 to 15 
years (Albrecht 2008b, pers. comm.).
    While these accessions do not contain seed from every unique 
colony, they represent each of the populations of Echinacea 
tennesseensis. These accessions provide satisfactory material should 
establishment of colonies from reintroductions or additional 
introductions become necessary in the future, as Baskauf et al. (1994, 
pp. 184-186) concluded that there is a low level of genetic 
differentiation among populations of E. tennesseensis and the origin of 
seeds probably is not a critical concern for establishing new 
populations. Therefore, we consider this recovery action completed.

Recovery Action (4): Establish New Colonies

    TDEC (2006, pp. 3-6) reported flowering stem counts for 21 
introduced colonies, but we have eliminated two of these from our 
analysis of the current status of Echinacea tennesseensis. One of these 
excluded colonies was introduced into a privately owned glade well 
outside of the known range of the species in Marshall County, consists 
of only a few vegetative stems, and is of doubtful viability. The other 
introduced colony that we excluded is located in Rutherford County, 
approximately 7 miles from the nearest E. tennesseensis population, and 
is believed to contain hybrids with E. simulata. Hybridization

[[Page 46640]]

between these two species has not been reported at any other site. The 
number of flowering stems reported from the monitored colonies during 
2005 ranged from only 1 to 6,183, and only one of these colonies had 
fewer than 100 flowering stems (TDEC 2006, pp. 4-5). An additional 
introduced colony (2.9) that was not surveyed during 2005, but 
contained thousands of plants in 2006 (Lincicome 2006, pers. comm.), 
brings the number of extant introduced colonies to 20. These 20 
colonies were established at various times since 1970, through the 
introductions of seed or transplanted individuals (TDEC 1991, pp. 3-7; 
TDEC 1996, Appendix I; Lincicome 2008, pers. com.), often from an 
undocumented or mixed origin with respect to the source populations 
(Hemmerly 1976, p. 81; Hemmerly 1990, pp. 1-8; TDEC 1991, pp. 4-8; 
Clebsch 1993, pp. 8-9). Numerous nurseries have grown E. tennesseensis 
for the purpose of providing seeds and plants for establishing new 
colonies (TDEC 1991, pp. 3-8). Baskauf et al. (1994, pp. 184-186) 
determined that less than 10 percent of the genetic variability of E. 
tennesseensis is distributed among populations and concluded from this 
low level of differentiation that the origin of seed used in 
establishing new populations probably is not a critical consideration. 
We summarize the distribution of these introduced colonies among E. 
tennesseensis populations in the discussion concerning recovery action 
number (5) below. Because 20 new colonies have been established, we 
consider this recovery action completed.

Recovery Action (5): Monitor Colonies and Conduct Management 
Activities, if Necessary, To Maintain the Recovered State in Each 
Colony

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

[[Page 46641]]

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

[[Page 46642]]

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

[[Page 46643]]

(2006, p. 4) counted 237 flowering stems at colony 6.2 and 852 
flowering stems at colony 6.3. The total number of flowering stems in 
the Stones River National Battlefield population in 2005 was 3,624 
(TDEC 2006, 4). Based on available quantitative and qualitative data, 
we believe all colonies in this population are secure and self-
sustaining.
    Numerous partners are involved in managing Echinacea tennesseensis 
populations on their lands. TDEC compared management options at the 
Vesta Cedar Glade DSNA, including mowing, discing, burning, and 
application of selective herbicides for removal of grasses (Clebsch 
1993, pp. 2-8). TDEC and TNC have used grazing of goats, mechanical 
removal, and herbicide applications to control woody species 
encroachment on the margins of cedar glade openings at Mount View Glade 
DSNA (TDEC 2003, pp. 4-9). TDEC applies prescribed fire or mechanical 
removal, as needed and within constraints imposed by locations within 
the urban interface, to control woody species, including the invasive 
exotic privet (Ligustrum sp.), at many DSNAs where E. tennesseensis 
occurs; these include Mount View Glade, Vesta Cedar Glade, Vine Cedar 
Glade, Cedars of Lebanon State Forest Natural Area, Gattinger's Cedar 
Glade and Barrens, Elsie Quarterman Cedar Glade, Fate Sanders Barrens, 
and Couchville Cedar Glade and Barrens. TDEC works with the Tennessee 
Division of Forestry (TDF) to ensure that colonies in the Cedars of 
Lebanon State Forest, which includes three DSNAs, receive necessary 
management and collaborates with TDF to implement all prescribed burns 
that are conducted on DSNAs. TDEC also has cooperated with COE on 
construction of fences or earthen berms around sites at J. Percy Priest 
Reservoir that have been threatened by urban encroachment and illegal 
ORV use. The NPS monitors the introduced population at the Stones River 
National Battlefield and controls woody plant encroachment and 
vegetation succession in the glade openings where the colonies occur, 
as necessary.
    Because TDEC and other entities have monitored Echinacea 
tennesseensis populations many times since the time of listing and have 
managed colonies on protected lands to minimize threats from vegetation 
succession and ORV use, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable 
future, we consider this recovery action completed.

Recovery Action (6): Conduct Public Education Projects

    Echinacea tennesseensis was featured in newspaper (Paine 2002, p. 
6B) and magazine (Simpson and Somers 1990, pp. 14-16; Campbell 1992, p. 
32; Daerr 1999, p. 50) articles to educate the general public about the 
species, the cedar glade ecosystem it occupies, and the conservation 
efforts directed towards them. The Service published ``An Educator's 
Guide to the Threatened and Endangered Species and Ecosystems of 
Tennessee,'' which includes instructional materials about the cedar 
glades of middle Tennessee and two Federally listed plant species found 
in the glades, E. tennesseensis and Astragalus bibullatus (Pyne's 
ground-plum) (Service no date, pp. 50-53). TDEC personnel periodically 
lead guided wildflower walks in the cedar glades DSNAs and educate the 
public about E. tennesseensis and other Federal and State listed plant 
species during those walks. In 2000, TDEC published 10,000 copies of an 
educational poster featuring Tennessee's rare plants, including E. 
tennesseensis. Because numerous public education projects have been 
conducted, we consider this recovery action completed.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    During the open comment period for the proposed rule (75 FR 48896, 
August 12, 2010), we requested that all interested parties submit 
comments or information concerning the proposed delisting of Echinacea 
tennesseensis. We directly notified and requested comments from the 
State of Tennessee. We contacted all appropriate State and Federal 
agencies, county governments, elected officials, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to 
comment. We also published a newspaper notice in The Tennesseean, a 
newspaper serving the middle Tennessee region where E. tennesseensis 
occurs, inviting public comment.
    As stated in the proposed rule (75 FR 48896, August 12, 2010), we 
accepted comments for 60 days, ending October 12, 2010. During the 
comment period, we received comments from two individuals.
    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) December 
16, 2004, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, we 
solicited independent opinions from 4 knowledgeable individuals who 
have expertise with the species, who are within the geographic region 
where the species occurs, or are familiar with the principles of 
conservation biology. We received comments from one of the peer 
reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewer and the 
public for substantive issues and new information regarding the 
proposed delisting of Echinacea tennesseensis. Substantive comments 
received during the comment period are addressed below and, where 
appropriate, incorporated directly into this final rule and into the 
post-delisting monitoring plan.
    Issue 1: One commenter requested that we address the site quality 
for the colonies that comprise the Allvan population and the growth of 
these colonies over time compared to other colonies, despite the fact 
that this population is not needed to meet the criteria in the recovery 
plan that there must be five populations with three secure and self-
sustaining colonies each. This request was made because Drew and 
Clebsch (1995, p. 64) observed during surveys conducted in 1987 that 
the Allvan site, where colony 4.1 was located, had a much different 
plant community assemblage than other Echinacea tennesseensis sites due 
to human disturbance and because the commenter apparently believed that 
colonies 4.2 and 4.3 also were located at this disturbed site.
    Response: Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 62) concluded that human 
disturbance had altered the vegetation community at the site where the 
original colony (4.1) of the Allvan population was located. The 
dominant species they observed at the Allvan site (Grindelia 
lanceolata, Silphium trifoliatum, and Aster pilosus var. priceae) were 
absent or present in low frequency at other sites. Conversely, the 
dominant species from the other sites were only present in low 
frequency and numbers at the site of colony 4.1. These differences were 
likely attributable to the intensive use that this site, owned by a 
trucking company, had experienced. The portion of the property where E. 
tennesseensis once occurred was used in the past as a discard site for 
old engine parts and other assorted scrap materials (TDEC 1996, 
Appendix I, p. XXI). As noted above, the colony at this site was 
destroyed prior to flowering stem counts in 2005.
    Colonies 4.2 and 4.3 of the Allvan site were both established on 
COE lands, in distinct sites from colony 4.1, from introductions during 
the years 1989 through 1991. In contrast to the site conditions where 
colony 4.1 was once located, TDEC (1996, Appendix I, pp.

[[Page 46644]]

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

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing 
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants. ``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species 
or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct 
vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when 
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the ``species'' is determined we then 
evaluate whether that species may be

[[Page 46645]]

endangered or threatened because of one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider these same 
five factors in reclassifying or delisting a species. We may delist a 
species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific 
and commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor 
threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) 
the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; 
and/or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the species 
were classified was in error.
    Under section 3 of the Act, a species is ``endangered'' if it is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant portion of its 
range'' and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a ``significant portion 
of its range.'' The word ``range'' refers to the range in which the 
species currently exists, and the word ``significant'' refers to the 
value of that portion of the range being considered to the conservation 
of the species. The ``foreseeable future'' is the period of time over 
which events or effects reasonably can or should be anticipated, or 
trends extrapolated. A recovered species is one that no longer meets 
the Act's definition of endangered or threatened. Determining whether 
or not a species is recovered requires consideration of the same five 
categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For 
species that are already listed as endangered or threatened, the 
analysis for a delisting due to recovery must include an evaluation of 
the threats that existed at the time of listing, the threats currently 
facing the species, and the threats that are reasonably likely to 
affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or 
downlisting and the removal of the Act's protections.
    The following analysis examines all five factors currently 
affecting, or that are likely to affect Echinacea tennesseensis within 
the foreseeable future. In making this final determination, we have 
considered all scientific and commercial information available, which 
includes information received during the public comment period on our 
proposed delisting rule (75 FR 48896, August 12, 2010), reanalyzed data 
from monitoring conducted during 1998 through 2004, and monitoring data 
collected in 2008 (TDEC unpublished data).

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    The final rule to list Echinacea tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR 
32604) identified the following habitat threats: Habitat loss due to 
residential and recreational development and succession of cedar glade 
communities in which the species occurred.
    Losses of cedar glade habitat and colonies of Echinacea 
tennesseensis to residential development have posed a significant 
threat to E. tennesseensis. At the time of listing, one population of 
E. tennesseensis had been reduced in size due to housing construction 
and another was destroyed during the construction of a trailer park. 
The three extant occurrences at that time were all located on private 
lands, one of which was imminently threatened by surrounding 
residential development. This Davidson County occurrence has since been 
protected as a DSNA. Approximately two-thirds of the Wilson County 
occurrence that was on public lands is now a DSNA, and one-third 
remains on private lands. The Rutherford County occurrence was located 
in a gravel parking lot of a commercial property and has been 
destroyed. Since the time of listing, protection of natural colonies on 
publicly owned conservation lands and establishment of additional 
colonies through introductions have effectively diminished the threat 
residential development once posed to the survival of E. tennesseensis.
    The final listing rule for Echinacea tennesseensis described 
recreational development as a threat facing the Davidson County (i.e., 
Mount View) population, but did not specifically address the nature of 
the recreational development. The Mount View, Allvan, and Couchville 
populations occur in close proximity to J. Percy Priest Reservoir, 
construction of which was completed in 1967. It is possible that 
development of recreational facilities following completion of the 
reservoir presented a threat to E. tennesseensis or cedar glade 
habitats. However, four of the secure and self-sustaining colonies 
(i.e., colonies 1.2, 1.4, 4.2, and 5.8) are located within the now-
protected lands buffering the reservoir, three of which were designated 
as Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the J. Percy Priest 2007 Master 
Plan Update (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2007, pp. 3-1--4-3). 
Therefore, recreational development no longer poses a threat to the 
survival of E. tennesseensis.
    There are now 27 colonies, distributed among the six populations of 
Echinacea tennesseensis, which occur entirely or primarily on 
conservation lands in either State or Federal ownership. The lone 
exception to public ownership of these conservation lands is the 
Gattinger Glade DSNA, which is managed by TDEC but privately owned and 
protected under a conservation easement. We consider 19 of these 
colonies to be secure and self-sustaining. Sixteen colonies, all but 
two of which are secure, are located entirely or primarily within DSNAs 
that were designated at various times between 1974 and 2009. TDEC 
manages most of these DSNAs, in some cases cooperatively with TDF, for 
the purpose of conserving E. tennesseensis and the cedar glades and 
barrens ecosystem that the species depends on for its survival. All but 
one of these DSNAs lie within or adjacent to State or Federal 
conservation lands that provide complementary conservation benefits by 
maintaining functioning ecosystems within which these colonies occur 
and harboring additional protected colonies of E. tennesseensis.
    The non-DSNA lands in the Cedars of Lebanon State Forest also 
contain three colonies, therefore providing a large, protected cedar 
glade and forest ecosystem connected to the Vesta Cedar Glade, Vine 
Cedar Glade, and Cedars of Lebanon State Forest DSNAs. An additional 
colony is located at the Cedars of Lebanon State Park, which is 
adjacent to the Cedars of Lebanon State Forest. Long Hunter State Park 
contains six colonies and provides a functioning ecosystem buffer to 
the Couchville Cedar Glade and Barrens DSNA. COE lands at J. Percy 
Priest Reservoir provide habitat for three colonies in addition to the 
colonies in the Elsie Quarterman Cedar Glade and Fate Sanders Barrens 
DSNAs that lie within these lands. The Gattinger Cedar Glade is the 
only DSNA on private land that contains a colony of Echinacea 
tennesseensis. While this property is not buffered by other public 
lands, it lies within a large tract of land owned by the Nashville 
Super Speedway, which has been a partner in the conservation of E. 
tennesseensis. The three colonies at Stones River National Battlefield 
are included among the 16 within DSNAs, and lie within a protected 
buffer provided by NPS lands.
    We believe the colonies that are located in DSNAs or on recently 
acquired lands that will be added to Tennessee's natural area system, 
with the exceptions of colonies 2.4 and 2.7, will receive adequate 
long-term protection and necessary management to control vegetation 
succession and disturbance from human activities, given the statutory 
protections afforded these lands and TDEC's demonstrated

[[Page 46646]]

commitment to protecting lands through this mechanism and to 
maintaining the quality of habitats in the DSNAs. Colonies 2.4 and 2.7 
contain an estimated 1 and 6 flowering stems, respectively. The lack of 
long-term protection and management for these two colonies will not 
have a significant effect on the status of the species, as these two 
colonies represent less than one percent of the Vesta population. We 
expect that the delisting of Echinacea tennesseensis would not weaken 
TDEC's commitment to the conservation of these DSNAs, several of which 
harbor one or more Federally listed plant species other than E. 
tennesseensis. We have also identified five colonies on public lands 
outside of DSNAs that we consider secure.
    Illegal ORV activity remains an issue for three colonies on public 
lands, which we have not counted among the 19 secure colonies. TDEC has 
worked to reduce this threat in several DSNAs by constructing barbed 
wire fences and barriers using limestone boulders. The COE has also 
extended efforts in the form of constructing fences or earthen berms or 
both near three colonies on lands at J. Percy Priest Reservoir to 
reduce this threat. Damage from ORV activity was noted by TDEC (1996, 
Appendix I) at only one of the 9 colonies located exclusively on 
private lands that are not under recovery protection agreements, none 
of which were counted among the 19 secure colonies in this rule. While 
illegal ORV use remains a concern throughout the range of Echinacea 
tennesseensis (TDEC 1996, p. 21 and Appendix I), we do not have 
evidence to suggest that such activity is occurring at a magnitude that 
makes E. tennesseensis likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future.
    Habitat loss or modification in the form of ORV activity has been 
observed at four colonies (TDEC 1996, Appendix I), and recovery 
protection agreements are lacking at nine colonies that exist solely on 
private lands, leaving them vulnerable to habitat disturbance. However, 
we believe that Echinacea tennesseensis is neither endangered nor 
threatened as a result of habitat loss or modification because there 
are 19 secure and self-sustaining colonies distributed among six 
geographically defined populations. Management of these colonies to 
reduce threats to E. tennesseensis and its habitat is coordinated by 
TDEC in cooperation with other partners. Examples of these management 
activities were provided under number (5) in the Recovery section.
    The listing rule for Echinacea tennesseensis (44 FR 32604) 
identified vegetation succession as a threat to the species and the 
cedar glades it depends on for its survival. A status survey for the 
species, completed in 1996 (TDEC 1996, p. 22), did not address this 
threat in its analysis of factors affecting the survival of the 
species, but it did recommend controlling vegetation succession at some 
sites in the appendix containing population and site status reports. 
TDEC has developed a program for managing vegetation succession and 
other threats to cedar glades on DSNAs inhabited by E. tennesseensis 
and two other Federally listed species, and continues to work 
cooperatively with TDF, Tennessee State Parks, and COE to manage 
potential threats in habitats where colonies exist on properties 
belonging to these agencies. Further, we are not aware of any colonies 
of E. tennesseensis that have been lost to vegetation succession.
    Summary of Factor A: Because we expect that the lands containing 
the 19 secure and self-sustaining colonies, which accounted for 
approximately 83 percent of the total flowering stems estimated to 
exist in 2005, will remain permanently protected and will be managed to 
maintain cedar glade habitat and no known colonies have been lost to 
vegetation succession, we find that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range has 
been effectively diminished to the point that it is no longer a threat 
to Echinacea tennesseensis.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The final rule to list Echinacea tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR 
32604) identified collection for commercial and recreational purposes 
as a threat to the species. Limited digging, presumably for 
horticultural purposes, has been observed in the past at five colonies 
of E. tennesseensis, three (i.e., colonies 5.3, 5.5, and 5.6) of which 
are located in high visibility areas within Long Hunter State Park 
(TDEC 1996, p. 21). We do not consider these three colonies or a fourth 
(i.e., colony 3.5) located on private land to be secure for the 
purposes of this rule. We consider colony 4.2, where digging has been 
observed in the past, to be secure because it became a DSNA in 1998, 
and no evidence of digging at this site has been recorded since 1996. 
Echinacea tennesseensis that originated from natural populations, but 
is now grown from seed or vegetative propagules produced in nurseries, 
is available for interstate commerce from one nursery under the 
authority of the Act through a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. These plants 
are also for sale by multiple nurseries only within Tennessee, thus not 
requiring a permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. TDEC regulates 
commerce of plants listed as endangered by the State of Tennessee 
through issuance of permits for this purpose, as authorized by the 
Tennessee Rare Plant Protection Act of 1985 (T.C.A. 11-26-201). There 
are also at least two cultivars of E. tennesseensis, which are of 
hybrid origin, now available for interstate commerce and easily found 
on the Internet. We do not believe cultivars are a threat to the 
Tennessee purple coneflower because planting of these individuals is 
not allowed on public and state owned property where wild populations 
occur.
    The genus Echinacea has long been used for medicinal purposes by 
Native Americans and is commercially available as a popular homeopathic 
supplement. However, the primary species used in commercial medicinal 
applications and studied for their medicinal properties do not include 
E. tennesseensis (Senchina et al. 2006, p. 1). We are not aware of 
collections of this species being taken for this purpose and do not 
believe this poses a threat to this species currently or into the 
foreseeable future.
    Summary of Factor B: Echinacea tennesseensis and hybrids displaying 
the attractive traits of the species are readily available 
commercially, and poaching has been observed in the past at only five 
colonies, one of which we counted as secure in our analysis for this 
delisting rule because this colony became a DSNA in 1998, and no 
evidence of activity has occurred since 1996. In addition, E. 
tennesseensis is not among the primary species of Echinacea used for 
medicinal applications. Therefore, we find that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational (i.e., gardening), scientific, or educational 
purposes is no longer a threat to E. tennesseensis.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    The listing rule for Echinacea tennesseensis (44 FR 32604) stated 
that light grazing occurred at colony 3.2 but acknowledged that the 
degree of threat, if any, posed by this grazing was uncertain. A robust 
population of E. tennesseensis remains at this site today, much of 
which was recently acquired by TDEC for addition to Tennessee's natural 
area system. Deer browse has been identified as an impact at the three 
colonies in Stones River National Battlefield (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, 
pp. XXXI-XXXIII) and at colony 5.5 (TDEC 2007, p. 5). However, we have 
no data

[[Page 46647]]

to suggest that such browsing currently threatens these colonies, which 
have persisted since being established by introductions 10 or more 
years ago.
    Summary of Factor C: Because we have no data to suggest that either 
grazing or deer browse threaten any colonies, we find that disease or 
predation is not a threat to Echinacea tennesseensis.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    When Echinacea tennesseensis was listed, the final rule to list E. 
tennesseensis as endangered (44 FR 32604) identified the lack of State 
protections as a threat to the species. Echinacea tennesseensis is now 
listed as endangered by the State of Tennessee and is protected under 
the Tennessee Rare Plant Protection Act of 1985 (T.C.A. 11-26-201), 
which forbids persons from knowingly uprooting, digging, taking, 
removing, damaging, destroying, possessing, or otherwise disturbing for 
any purpose, any endangered species from private or public lands 
without the written permission of the landowner. While this legislation 
does not forbid the destruction of E. tennesseensis or its habitat with 
landowner permission, neither does the Act afford such protection to 
listed plants. Regardless, as discussed in Factor A above, destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is no longer a 
threat. Furthermore, those colonies located in DSNAs are afforded 
additional protection by the State of Tennessee's Natural Area 
Preservation Act of 1971 (T.C.A. 11-1701), which protects DSNAs from 
vandalism and forbids removal of State endangered and threatened 
species from these areas.
    Summary of Factor D: While it is possible that the State of 
Tennessee could determine that Echinacea tennesseensis should be 
removed from the State's endangered plant list of Tennessee if the 
species is removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants, we believe that the protected status of the lands where the 19 
secure colonies currently exist will continue to provide adequate 
regulatory protection for those colonies even if State delisting 
occurs. Therefore, we find that the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms is no longer a threat to E. tennesseensis.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

    TDEC (1996, p. 2) identified low levels of genetic variability in 
Echinacea tennesseensis as a threat but did not report any deleterious 
effects of diminished genetic variability, such as inbreeding 
depression, that would indicate this factor poses a threat to this 
species. Baskauf et al. (1994, p. 186) documented low levels of genetic 
variability in E. tennesseensis, but also observed that this species is 
not devoid of genetic variability and is evidently well adapted to its 
cedar glade habitat. They noted that given the relatively large sizes 
of many of the naturally occurring populations, random genetic drift 
should not erode genetic variability in E. tennesseensis very rapidly. 
They suggested that dramatic population fluctuations or extinction and 
colonization events could have occurred historically and eroded genetic 
variability (Baskauf et al. 1994, p. 186). However, it is possible that 
this species might never have possessed high levels of genetic 
variability (Walck et al. 2002, p. 62). Reduction of genetic diversity 
could affect the viability of the introduced colonies, as they could be 
subject to losses in genetic variability that result from establishing 
colonies from a subset of the total genetic structure found in the 
species (i.e., the founder effect) (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, p. 
129). We have no information concerning the genetic structure of 
introduced colonies compared to naturally occurring ones, but this 
could be a factor to investigate if introduced colonies are found to be 
less stable than natural colonies through future monitoring. At this 
time, however, we do not believe that low genetic variability threatens 
E. tennesseensis.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 
evidence of warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, 
p. 30). Numerous long-term climate changes have been observed including 
changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in 
precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of 
extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, 
and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2007b, p. 7). While 
continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is 
unknown in many cases. Species that are dependent on specialized 
habitat types, that are limited in distribution, or that have become 
restricted to the extreme periphery of their range will be most 
susceptible to the impacts of climate change. As stated above, 
Echinacea tennesseensis is only found in limestone barrens and cedar 
glades habitats of the Central Basin, Interior Low Plateau 
Physiographic Province, in Davidson, Rutherford, and Wilson Counties in 
Tennessee. Within this ecosystem, E. tennesseensis inhabits both xeric 
(dry) communities, where there is no soil or soil depth less than 5 cm 
(2 in.) and subxeric (moderately dry) communities on soils deeper than 
5 cm (2 in.).
    Estimates of the effects of climate change using available climate 
models lack the geographic precision needed to predict the magnitude of 
effects at a scale small enough to discretely apply to the range of 
Echinacea tennesseensis. However, data on recent trends and predicted 
changes for the Southeast United States (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 111-116) 
provide some insight for evaluating the potential threat of climate 
change to E. tennesseensis. Since 1970, the average annual temperature 
of the region has increased by about 2 [deg]F, with the greatest 
increases occurring during winter months. The geographic extent of 
areas in the Southeast region affected by moderate to severe spring and 
summer drought has increased over the past three decades by 12 and 14 
percent, respectively (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). These trends are 
expected to increase.
    Rates of warming are predicted to more than double in comparison to 
what the Southeast has experienced since 1975, with the greatest 
increases projected for summer months. Depending on the emissions 
scenario used for modeling change, average temperatures are expected to 
increase by 4.5 [deg]F to 9 [deg]F by the 2080s (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 
111). While there is considerable variability in rainfall predictions 
throughout the region, increases in evaporation of moisture from soils 
and loss of water by plants in response to warmer temperatures are 
expected to contribute to the effect of these droughts (Karl et al. 
2009, pp. 112).
    Despite the observations of Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 66) that 
seedlings had an approximately 50-percent probability of dying during 
the drought conditions that occurred during their first year of study, 
we believe there is biological and historical evidence to suggest that 
Echinacea tennesseensis is well-adapted to endure predicted effects of 
climate change. First, Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 66) found that stage-
specific mortality rates during the drought conditions of their first 
year of study for non-reproductive E. tennesseensis plants with a 
cumulative leaf length greater than 30 cm (12 in) (i.e., non-seedling, 
vegetative plants) and plants that were reproductively active ranged 
from 17 to 31 percent, considerably lower than rates observed in 
seedlings. Second, Hemmerly (1976, p. 12) found that mature plants 
possessed several roots

[[Page 46648]]

averaging 38.4 cm (15.1 in.) length and extending an average depth of 
23.1 cm (9.1 in.) into the soil, often branching horizontally after 
reaching an impenetrable rock layer. These observations suggest that 
while seedlings face higher risks of mortality to drought conditions, 
this species possesses biological characteristics that increase drought 
resistance in later life-history stages. That non-seedling life stages 
of E. tennesseensis are more resilient to drought than seedlings is 
supported by Drew and Clebsch's (1995, p. 67) observation of 
demographic patterns in flowering individuals. During 1988, 41 percent 
of the plants that they observed flowering during 1987 failed to do so, 
presumably influenced by drought. However, 68 percent of those plants 
that failed to flower during 1988 produced flowers again during 1989, 
when annual rainfall levels increased. This ability to vary flower 
production in relation to annual rainfall levels, combined with its 
apparently long-lived habit (Baskauf 1993, p. 37), should enable E. 
tennesseensis to remain viable through periods of drought.
    Studies examining the influence of genetic, ecological, and 
physiological factors on the distribution of Echinacea tennesseensis 
have not found sufficient differences between this species and more 
widespread congeners to explain its endemism in the cedar glades of 
middle Tennessee based on these factors alone (Baskin et al. 1997, p. 
385; Baskauf and Eickmeier 1994, p. 963; Snyder et al. 1994, p. 64). 
Rather, it has been suggested that historical and ecological factors 
contributed to the evolution of this species and its subsequent 
restriction to cedar glade habitats in middle Tennessee (Baskin et al. 
1997, p. 385). Baskin et al. (1997, pp. 390-391) suggested that an 
ancestral form of E. tennesseensis migrated to and became established 
in middle Tennessee during the Hypsithermal Interval (i.e., the period 
of greatest post-glacial warming, ca. 8,000 to 5,000 years before 
present), and that as temperatures became cooler, the only members of 
this ancestral taxon that survived were those growing in the cedar 
glades of the region --i.e., the plants that eventually gave rise to E. 
tennesseensis.
    While predictions of increased drought frequency, intensity, and 
duration suggest that seedling survival could be a limiting factor for 
Echinacea tennesseensis, the species possesses other biological traits 
(i.e., long life span, interannual reproductive variability) to provide 
resilience to this threat. In their analyses of life-history traits in 
relation to potential vulnerability to variability in demographic vital 
rates caused by increased variability in climatic patterns, Morris et 
al. (2008, p. 22) and Dalgleish et al. (2010, p. 216) concluded that 
longer-lived species should be less influenced by climate-driven 
increases in demographic variability. Further, predicted climate 
changes for the Southeast could, similar to what is believed to have 
taken place during the Hypsithermal Interval (Delcourt et al. 1986, p. 
135), lead to an expansion of openings within forested areas of middle 
Tennessee, potentially increasing the area occupied by cedar glades 
communities. This presumably would increase the amount of suitable 
habitat available for E. tennesseensis. Based on these factors and the 
fact that we have no evidence that climate changes observed to date 
have had any adverse impact on E. tennesseensis or its habitat, we do 
not believe that climate change is a threat to E. tennesseensis now or 
within the foreseeable future.
    Summary of Factor E: Because (1) management activities take place 
to prevent the loss of 19 secure Echinacea tennesseensis colonies, (2) 
31 colonies are considered self-sustaining, as measured by persistence 
and demographic stability over time (despite low levels of genetic 
variation within the species), (3) there is biological and historical 
evidence to suggest that E. tennesseensis is well-adapted to endure 
predicted effects of climate change, and (4) we have no evidence that 
climate changes observed to date have had any adverse impact on E. 
tennesseensis or its habitat, we find that other natural or manmade 
factors considered here are no longer a threat to E. tennesseensis. 
Post delisting monitoring will also afford an opportunity to monitor 
the impacts of any natural events that occur, such as a drought similar 
to the one in 2007 and 2008, for five growing seasons to ensure that E. 
tennesseensis no longer requires protection as a listed species.

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the threats faced by Echinacea 
tennesseensis in developing this rule. As identified above, site 
protection and habitat management efforts by TDEC, working 
cooperatively with TDF, TNC, COE, the Service, and private landowners, 
has reduced habitat loss from residential and recreational development 
so that it is no longer a threat. Potential effects of ORV use, illegal 
and otherwise, in habitats containing colonies of E. tennesseensis 
remain. While disturbance from ORV use has been observed in the past 
and remains unaddressed at four colonies (i.e., colonies 2.4, 3.6, 3.8, 
and 4.3) on publicly and privately owned lands harboring E. 
tennesseensis, these four colonies accounted for only 2 percent of the 
species' total distribution in 2005. Most of the largest colonies are 
located in DSNAs and are protected from this threat by fences or other 
barriers that TDEC has constructed and maintained. At the time the 1989 
recovery plan was written, there were five extant populations ranging 
in size from approximately 3,700 to 89,000 plants and consisting of one 
to three colonies each (Clebsch 1988, p. 14; Service 1989, p. 2). There 
was an estimated total of 146,000 individual plants in 1989 (Drew and 
Clebsch 1995, p. 62). Recovery efforts have secured habitat for 19 
colonies that are self-sustaining and distributed among six 
geographically defined populations. These 19 secured colonies accounted 
for 88,773 flowering stems in 2005, or approximately 83 percent of the 
flowering stems observed; whereas, colonies that we do not consider 
secure accounted for 18,576 flowering stems, or approximately 17 
percent of the flowering stems observed (TDEC 2006, pp. 4-5). The 
number of secured plants and colonies is adequate to ensure that Factor 
A is no longer a threat to the species overall. Thus, destruction and 
modification of habitat from ORV use is not a threat to the species 
throughout all its range now or into the foreseeable future.
    The final rule that listed Echinacea tennesseensis as endangered 
(44 FR 32604) identified the overuse of this species for commercial or 
scientific (i.e., medicinal) purposes as a potential threat to this 
species. This threat has not materialized, and we do not believe it 
will in the future due to the emphasis on use of three other species 
from the genus Echinacea for this purpose. Neither do livestock 
grazing, as identified in the listing rule, nor browse by herbivores 
threaten E. tennesseensis.
    The State of Tennessee enacted the Rare Plant Protection Act of 
1985, addressing the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for 
protecting this species at the time it was listed. Should the State of 
Tennessee remove Echinacea tennesseensis from its List of Endangered 
Plants, we believe that the protected status of the lands where the 19 
secure colonies currently exist will continue to provide adequate 
regulatory protection for those colonies. Also, TDEC's program for 
managing vegetation succession and other threats to cedar glade 
habitats on DSNAs inhabited by E. tennesseensis and their cooperative 
efforts with TDF, Tennessee

[[Page 46649]]

State Parks, and COE to manage threats in habitats where colonies exist 
on properties under their jurisdictions have been effective in 
maintaining habitats in the absence of disturbances from ORV activity.
    Baskauf et al. (1994, p. 186) documented low levels of genetic 
variability in Echinacea tennesseensis, but also observed that this 
species is not devoid of genetic variability and is evidently well 
adapted to its cedar glade habitat. They noted that given the 
relatively large sizes of many of the naturally occurring populations, 
random genetic drift should not erode genetic variability in E. 
tennesseensis very rapidly. We do not believe that low genetic 
variability threatens E. tennesseensis now or within the foreseeable 
future.
    Based on biological evidence and historical factors discussed above 
in relation to the potential threat of climate change, and the fact 
that we have no evidence that climate changes observed to date have had 
any adverse impact on Echinacea tennesseensis or its habitat, we do not 
believe that climate change is a threat to E. tennesseensis now or 
within the foreseeable future.
    With respect to Echinacea tennesseensis, we have sufficient 
evidence (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section above) 
to show that all of the threats identified at or since the time of 
listing are no longer significant threats to the species, and are not 
likely to become threats in the foreseeable future. We believe that the 
19 secure, self-sustaining colonies distributed among six populations 
are secure for the foreseeable future from the threats currently 
affecting the species and those identified at the time of listing. 
These 19 colonies are located on protected conservation lands, the 
long-term management of which we believe precludes threats due to 
residential or recreational development and succession of cedar glade 
communities for the foreseeable future. Based on the analysis above and 
given the reduction in threats, Echinacea tennesseensis does not 
currently meet the Act's definition of endangered in that it is not in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range, nor the definition of 
threatened in that it is not likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future throughout all its range.

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

    Having determined that Echinacea tennesseensis does not meet the 
definition of endangered or threatened throughout its range, we must 
next consider whether there are any significant portions of its range 
that are in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered. A 
portion of a species' range is significant if it is part of the current 
range of the species and is important to the conservation of the 
species as evaluated based upon its representation, resiliency, or 
redundancy.
    If we identify any portions of a species' range that warrant 
further consideration, we then determine whether in fact the species is 
endangered or threatened in any significant portion of its range. 
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it 
faces, it may be more efficient for the Service to address the 
significance question first and in others the status question first. 
Thus, if the Service determines that a portion of the range is not 
significant, the Service need not determine whether the species is 
endangered or threatened there. If the Service determines that the 
species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, the 
Service need not determine if that portion is significant.
    For Echinacea tennesseensis, we applied the process described above 
to determine whether any portions of the range warranted further 
consideration. The potential threats identified above are fairly 
uniform throughout the range of the species; however, they are more 
pronounced on privately owned lands where the species occurs. As 
discussed above, a portion of a species' range is significant if it is 
part of the current range of the species and is important to the 
conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the 
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The 
contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a 
decrease in the ability to conserve the species. While there is some 
variability in the habitats occupied by E. tennesseensis across its 
range, the basic ecological components required for the species to 
complete its life cycle are present throughout the habitats occupied by 
the six populations. No specific location within the current range of 
the species provides a unique or biologically significant function that 
is not found in other portions of the range. The currently occupied 
range of E. tennesseensis encompasses approximately 400 km\2\ (154 
mi\2\) in Davidson, Rutherford, and Wilson Counties, Tennessee. We have 
determined that 19 secure and self-sustaining colonies presently are 
distributed among the six populations of E. tennesseensis, which 
accounted for approximately 83 percent of the total individuals 
estimated to exist in 2005. Sixteen additional colonies account for the 
remaining 17 percent of the total individuals estimated to exist in 
2005 and are not considered secure. However, we do not consider these 
unsecured colonies to be a significant portion of the range of this 
species because these colonies provide no unique or biologically 
significant function that is not provided by the 19 secured and self-
sustaining colonies.
    In conclusion, major threats to Echinacea tennesseensis have been 
reduced, managed, or eliminated. Although the impacts to E. 
tennesseensis habitat are fairly uniform throughout the range of the 
species, they are more pronounced on privately owned lands where the 
species occurs. However, we do not consider these unsecured colonies to 
be a significant portion of the range of this species. Therefore, we 
have determined that E. tennesseensis is not in danger of becoming 
extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range nor is it 
likely to become endangered now or within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or any significant portion of its range. On the basis of 
this evaluation, we believe E. tennesseensis no longer requires the 
protection of the Act, and we remove E. tennesseensis from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)).

Effect of This Rule

    This rule will revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove Echinacea 
tennesseensis from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 
Because no critical habitat was ever designated for this species, this 
rule will not affect 50 CFR 17.96.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
plants. The prohibitions under section 9(a)(2) of the Act make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce, remove and reduce Echinacea tennesseensis to 
possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig 
up, or damage or destroy E. tennesseensis on any other area in knowing 
violation of any State law or regulation such as a trespass law. 
Section 7 of the Act requires that Federal agencies consult with us to 
ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is 
not likely to jeopardize the species' continued existence. This rule 
will revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove

[[Page 46650]]

(delist) E. tennesseensis from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants and these prohibitions would no longer apply. 
Delisting E. tennesseensis is expected to have positive effects in 
terms of increasing management flexibility by State and Federal 
governments.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor for at least 5 
years species that are delisted due to recovery. Post-delisting 
monitoring refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species 
delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction 
after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of 
post-delisting monitoring is to monitor the species so that its status 
does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to 
halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is 
not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring period, data 
indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we 
can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency 
listing.
    Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires cooperation with the 
States in development and implementation of post-delisting monitoring 
programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g) 
and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of post-
delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of other 
entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species' 
conservation after delisting. In August 2008, TDEC agreed to be a 
cooperator in the post-delisting monitoring of E. tennesseensis.
    We have finalized a Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan (Plan) for 
Echinacea tennesseensis (USFWS 2011, entire). The Plan: (1) Summarizes 
the species' status at the time of delisting; (2) defines thresholds or 
triggers for potential monitoring outcomes and conclusions; (3) lays 
out frequency and duration of monitoring; (4) articulates monitoring 
methods, including sampling considerations; (5) outlines data 
compilation and reporting procedures and responsibilities; and (6) 
depicts a post-delisting monitoring implementation schedule, including 
timing and responsible parties.

Required Determinations

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that Federal 
agencies obtain approval from OMB before collecting information from 
the public. The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection 
of information as the obtaining of information by or for an agency by 
means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, 
recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 or more 
persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or more 
persons'' refers to the persons to whom a collection of information is 
addressed by the agency within any 12-month period. For purposes of 
this definition, employees of the Federal government are not included. 
This rule and our final Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan do not contain 
any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement, as defined in the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that 
there are no Tribal lands affected by this rule.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on http://www.regulations.gov under docket number FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059.

Author

    The primary author of this document is Geoff Call, Tennessee 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Echinacea 
tennesseensis'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' from the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants.

    Dated: July 21, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-19674 Filed 8-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P