[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47109-47134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18213]



[[Page 47109]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0087; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ11


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status 
for Physaria globosa (Short's bladderpod), Helianthus verticillatus 
(whorled sunflower), and Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit gladecress)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list 
Physaria globosa (Short's bladderpod), Helianthus verticillatus 
(whorled sunflower), and Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit gladecress) 
as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's 
protections to Physaria globosa (Short's bladderpod), Helianthus 
verticillatus (whorled sunflower), and Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-
fruit gladecress) to conserve these species.

DATES: We will accept all comments received or postmarked on or before 
October 1, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests 
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by September 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search field, enter Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2013-0087, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type 
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You 
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!'' If your comments 
will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review 
procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our 
preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple 
comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet 
in Microsoft Excel.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2013-0087; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested 
section below for more details).

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; by telephone 931-528-
6481; or by 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we intend to list 
a species are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in 
the Federal Register to list the species as endangered or threatened 
and make a determination on our proposal within 1 year. Listing a 
species as an endangered or threatened species can only be completed by 
issuing a rule.
    This rule proposes to add three plants to the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants. We are proposing to list Short's 
bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress as 
endangered species under the Act. Elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register, we propose to designate critical habitat for the Short's 
bladderpod, freshy-fruit gladecress, and the whorled sunflower.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence.
    We have determined that listing is warranted for these species, 
which are currently at risk throughout all of their respective ranges 
due to threats related to:
     For Short's bladderpod, potential future construction and 
ongoing maintenance of transportation rights-of-way; prolonged 
inundation and soil erosion due to flooding and water level 
manipulation; overstory shading due to forest succession and shading 
and competition from invasive, nonnative plant species; and small 
population sizes.
     For whorled sunflower, mechanical or chemical vegetation 
management for industrial forestry, right-of-way maintenance, or 
agriculture; shading and competition resulting from vegetation 
succession; limited distribution and small population sizes.
     For fleshy-fruit gladecress, loss of habitat due to 
residential and industrial development; conversion of agricultural 
sites for use as pasture; mowing and herbicide treatment prior to seed 
production; and off-road vehicles and dumping.
    We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our 
analysis of the best available science and application of that science 
and to provide any additional information to improve this proposed 
rule. Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from 
this proposal.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly 
seek comments concerning:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, reproducing, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their 
habitats or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a

[[Page 47110]]

species under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and regulations that may 
be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
    (5) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these 
species and possible impacts of these activities on them.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request 
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES 
section.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. 
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

Previous Federal Actions

    The Act requires the Service to identify species of wildlife and 
plants that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data. The Act directed the Secretary of the 
Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on endangered and 
threatened plant species, which was published as House Document No. 94-
51. The Service published a notice in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1975 (40 FR 27824), in which we announced that more than 3,000 native 
plant taxa named in the Smithsonian's report and other taxa added by 
the 1975 notice would be reviewed for possible inclusion in the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants. The 1975 notice was superseded on 
December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480), by a new comprehensive notice of 
review for native plants that took into account the earlier Smithsonian 
report and other accumulated information. On November 28, 1983 (48 FR 
53640), a supplemental plant notice of review noted the status of 
various taxa. Complete updates of the plant notice were published on 
September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526) and on February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184).
    In these reviews, Short's bladderpod (as Lesquerella globosa) was 
listed as a Category 2 candidate, taxa for which information in the 
possession of the Service indicated that proposing to list the species 
as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which 
sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threat were not 
available to support listing rules. Further biological research and 
field study usually was necessary to ascertain the status of taxa in 
this category.
    Fleshy-fruit gladecress was recognized as consisting of two 
varietal taxa in these reviews, Leavenworthia crassa var. crassa and L. 
crassa var. elongata. In the 1980 review, var. crassa was listed as a 
Category 2 candidate, while var. elongata was listed as a Category 1 
candidate, taxa for which the Service had sufficient information to 
support listing as either endangered or threatened. In the 1983, 1985, 
and 1990 reviews both varieties of Leavenworthia crassa were listed as 
Category 2 candidates. Many Category 2 candidate species were found not 
to warrant listing, either because they were not endangered or 
threatened or because they did not qualify as species under the 
definitions in the Act (58 FR 51144, September 30, 1993).
    In 1993, the Service eliminated candidate categories, and Short's 
bladderpod and the two varieties of fleshy-fruit gladecress were no 
longer candidates until they were again elevated to candidate status on 
October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57534). The 1999 review elevated the species 
Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit gladecress) to candidate status, but 
did not recognize intraspecific taxa (varieties) due to changes in 
scientifically accepted taxonomy. Whorled sunflower was first listed as 
a candidate species in the 1999 review. All three of these species were 
then included in subsequent candidate notices of review on October 30, 
2001 (66 FR 54808), June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657), May 4, 2004 (69 FR 
24876), May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870), September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), 
December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), 
November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), 
October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), and November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994).

Species Information

Short's bladderpod
    Physaria globosa is a member of the mustard family (Brassicaceae) 
known from Posey County, Indiana; Clark, Franklin and Woodford 
Counties, Kentucky; and Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Jackson, 
Montgomery, Smith, and Trousdale Counties, Tennessee. The following 
description is based on Flora of North America (http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250095135, accessed on December 
7, 2012) and Gleason and Chronquist (1991, p. 187).
    Short's bladderpod is an upright biennial or perennial (lives for 2 
years or longer) with several stems, some branched at the base, 
reaching heights up to 50 centimeters (cm) (20 inches (in.)), and which 
are leafy to the base of the inflorescence (a group or cluster of 
flowers arranged on a stem that is composed of a main branch or a 
complicated arrangement of branches). The basal leaves, borne on short 
petioles (stalks) are 2.5 to 5 cm (1 to 2 in.) in length and 0.5 to 1.5 
cm (0.2 to 0.6 in.) wide, obovate (egg-shaped and flat, with the narrow 
end attached to the stalk) or oblanceolate (with the widest portion of 
the leaf blade beyond the middle) in shape, with a smooth or slightly 
wavy margin, and gray-green in color due to a layer of dense hairs. 
Leaves are gradually reduced in size and petiole length higher up the 
stem. Numerous flowers are borne on a raceme (elongate,

[[Page 47111]]

spike-shaped inflorescence to which individual flowers are attached by 
slender pedicels, or stalks, which in Short's bladderpod are longer 
than the flowers). The yellow flowers are composed of four spoon-shaped 
petals, 0.4 to 0.7 cm (0.16 to 0.28 in.) long. The fruit is globose in 
shape and lightly beset with stellate (star-shaped) hairs, but becoming 
smooth with time.
    Taxonomy. A member of the mustard family (Brassicaceae), Short's 
bladderpod was first described as Vesicaria globosa by Desvaux in 1814 
(Payson 1922, pp. 103-236). Because of several distinctive characters, 
Watson (1888, pp. 249-255) proposed that the American species of the 
genus Vesicaria be placed in the genus Lesquerella. This treatment was 
recognized as valid, until Al-Shehbaz and O'Kane (2002, entire) 
reunited most of the genus Lesquerella with the genus Physaria. This 
determination was supported by molecular, morphological, cytological, 
biogeographic, and ecological lines of evidence (Al-Shehbaz and O'Kane 
2002, p. 320). Flora of North America recognizes this change, using the 
scientific name Physaria globosa for Short's bladderpod (http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250095135, 
accessed on April 20, 2011).
    Distribution and Status. In a 1992 status survey for Short's 
bladderpod, Shea (1993, pp. 6-15) observed the species at only 26 of 50 
historical sites: 1 in Indiana, 14 in Kentucky, and 11 in Tennessee. 
The remaining sites were classified as follows (Shea 1993, p. 10-14):
     Status uncertain--4 occurrences where the species had been 
observed during the prior 25 years and where appropriate habitat 
existed with no evidence that the occurrence had been destroyed (Shea 
population numbers 27 through 30).
     Extirpated--one occurrence where the habitat had been 
severely altered (Shea population number 31).
     Historical--5 occurrences where the species had not been 
observed during the prior 25 years, but where appropriate habitat 
remained (Shea population numbers 32 through 36).
     Locality information incomplete--14 occurrences for which 
location information was insufficient to confirm the species' presence 
or absence, despite searches having been attempted in some cases (Shea 
population numbers 37 through 50). Many of these putative occurrences 
were based on herbarium specimens dating from the late-19th to mid-20th 
centuries that contained little information about sites from which they 
were collected. Except for the populations numbered 37, 42, and 50, 
Shea (1993) searched for suitable habitat or Short's bladderpod plants 
in areas associated with these occurrences but did not find the 
species.

Later surveys found Short's bladderpod extant at two of these sites, 
Tennessee element occurrence (EO) numbers 8 and 12, which correspond to 
Shea's population numbers 34 and 29, respectively.
    We used data provided to us by conservation agencies in the States 
where the species occurs (Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center (INHDC) 
2012, Kentucky Natural Heritage Program (KNHP) 2012, Tennessee 
(Tennessee Natural Heritage Inventory Database (TNHID) 2012) to 
determine the current distribution and status of Short's bladderpod. 
Difficulty in relating the species' distribution at the time of Shea's 
(1993, entire) status survey to its current distribution comes as a 
result of State conservation agencies revising the mapping of some 
element occurrences in these databases. In two instances, pairs of 
occurrences that Shea (1993) considered distinct have been combined 
into single element occurrences (Table 1). Conversely, TNHID (2012) 
treats as two distinct element occurrences the two locations that Shea 
(1993, p. 85, 108) mapped together as population number 23. One of 
these occurrences (TN EO number 22) was extant as of 2012 (Table 1), 
while the other (TN EO number 2) is extirpated (Table 2). Based on 
current mapping, State conservation agencies now recognize 24 element 
occurrences that correspond to populations that Shea (1993, entire) 
found extant in 1992. Of these 24 occurrences, 18 were extant in 2012. 
Accounting for rediscovery of the two Tennessee occurrences that Shea 
(1993, pp. 10-14) did not find during 1992, and recent changes in 
element occurrence mapping, a total of 20 occurrences that were 
documented by Shea (1993, entire) were still considered extant as of 
2012 (Table 1).
    The approximate range of abundance shown in Table 1 is primarily 
based on individual plants. As a result of location, it was impossible 
to enumerate individual plants. This resulted in are two instances 
where TNHID surveyed these populations from a boat and reported the 
approximate range in clusters.

    Table 1--List of Known Extant Short's Bladderpod Occurrences by State and County, With Element Occurrence (EO) Numbers Assigned by State Natural
 Heritage Programs (INHDC (2012), KNHP (2012), TNHID (2012)), Numbers Assigned to Populations Reported in Shea (1993), and First and Last Years of Known
                                                                      Observations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            EO Number
                                                              (Shea                                       Approximate range of
              State                       County           Population    First observed   Last observed        abundance             Land ownership
                                                             Number)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana..........................  Posey...............           1 (1)      1941-05-06            2012  3-1000s..............  IDNR.
Kentucky.........................  Clark...............           1 (3)            1957      2009-05-21  2....................  Private.
                                   Franklin............      4 (11, 12)            1979      2011-04-19  100-500..............  Private.
                                                                 7 (10)            1981      2004-05-17  1-100................  Private.
                                                                11 (13)            1983      2003-06-01  1-52.................  Private.
                                                                 18 (4)            1992      2012-05-09  20-350...............  City of Frankfort.
                                                                 22 (9)       1990-Pres      2012-05-08  2-200................  private; Kentucky State
                                                                                                                                 Nature Preserves
                                                                                                                                 Commission.
                                                                23 (14)            1990      2011-04-26  60-500...............  Private.
                                   Woodford............              28      2005-05-06      2010-06-02  few..................  Private.
Tennessee........................  Cheatham............          1 (18)      1956-03-02      2008-04-23  100s-1000s...........  COE; private.
                                                                15 (17)      1955-04-24      2008-04-29  few-20...............  COE.

[[Page 47112]]

 
                                                                17 (16)      1953-04-26      2012-06-15  20-~1500.............  Town of Ashland City;
                                                                                                                                 private.
                                                                     29      1998-05-12      2008-04-29  ~50..................  COE; private.
                                                                     30      1998-05-12      2008-04-29  10-25................  COE; private.
                                   Davidson; Cheatham..      10 (21,22)            1935      2012-06-15  10s-1000s............  Private.
                                   Davidson............          4 (19)      1971-05-16      2012-06-15  100s-1000s...........  private; COE easement.
                                                                 8 (34)      1886-04-22      2008-05-02  ~50..................  private; COE easement.
                                   Dickson.............              32      2008-04-29      2008-04-29  ~7 clusters..........  COE.
                                   Jackson.............              26      1998-05-08      2008-05-06  3 clusters...........  COE.
                                                                     27      1998-05-08      2008-05-06  ~50..................  COE.
                                   Montgomery..........         12 (29)      1946-04-27      2008-05-09  ~50..................  private; COE easement.
                                                               22 (23a)      1969-04-28      2008-05-02  20-50................  private; COE easement.
                                                                     28      1998-04-23      2008-04-29  ~300.................  private; COE easement.
                                   Smith...............              24      1998-05-05      2008-05-06  ~10..................  COE.
                                   Trousdale...........          3 (25)      1969-05-08      2008-05-06  40-500...............  COE; private.
                                                                21 (26)      1992-04-30      2008-05-12  100-250..............  COE; private.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDNR is the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
COE is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Pres is present.

    Despite the rediscovery of the two Tennessee occurrences and the 
discovery of 10 additional occurrences since the 1992 status survey, 
only 26 extant occurrences of Short's bladderpod are known to remain 
due to the loss of 10 occurrences during the last 20 years (Table 1). 
Seven of the occurrences that Shea (1993, pp. 44-71) observed in 1992, 
and three others (Kentucky EO number 27 and Tennessee EO numbers 23 and 
25) that were seen after 1992, have since been extirpated (Table 2). 
This constitutes a loss of 27 percent of all occurrences that were 
extant during 1992 or later.

 Table 2--List of Extirpated Short's Bladderpod Occurrences by State and County, With Element Occurrence (EO) Numbers Assigned by State Natural Heritage
     Programs (INHDC (2012), KNHP (2012), TNHID (2012)), Numbers Assigned to Populations Reported in Shea (1993), and First and Last Years of Known
                                                                      Observations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                EO Number
                                                                  (Shea
               State                         County            Population    First observed   Last observed     Abundance           Land ownership
                                                                 Number)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky...........................  Bourbon...............        * 19 (2)      1963-04-27      2005-06-09          10-120  private.
                                     Fayette...............         12 (38)            1931      1931-05-24             n/a  private.
                                                                    16 (37)            1892      1900-05-09             n/a  private.
                                     Franklin..............         * 2 (6)         1979-05      1992-05-04              11  private.
                                                                    * 3 (8)            1979      1994-05-12               4  private.
                                                                     5 (39)            1880         1880-06             n/a  private.
                                                                     8 (27)            1981      1981-05-03             ~40  private.
                                                                    14 (40)            1856         1856-05             n/a  private.
                                                                   * 20 (5)            1992      1992-05-19              21  private.
                                                                   * 21 (7)            1992      1992-05-12               7  private.
                                     Jessamine.............          6 (42)            1942      1942-05-16             n/a  private.
                                                                    13 (32)            1939      1939-04-27             n/a  private.
                                                                    17 (28)        1991-Pre        1991-Pre             n/a  private.
                                                                     \+\ 27            1990      1993-05-10             1-7  private.
                                     Madison...............         10 (43)            1903      1903-05-16             n/a  private.
                                     Mercer................         24 (44)            1916      1916-05-13             1-7  private.
                                     Nelson................              25        1935-pre        1935-pre             n/a  private.
                                     Powell................         15 (45)            1923      1923-05-26             n/a  private.
                                     Scott.................        * 9 (15)            1930      1992-05-19               2  private.
Tennessee..........................  Cheatham..............         14 (33)      1969-04-29      1969-04-29             n/a  private.
                                     Davidson..............        * 9 (20)      1974-04-16      1998-04-16           20-29  private; COE easement.
                                                                     \+\ 23      1997-05-09      1997-05-09            ~200  private.

[[Page 47113]]

 
                                     Jackson...............          \+\ 25      1998-07-24      1998-07-24               5  COE
                                     Maury.................          7 (31)      1955-04-23      1955-04-23             n/a  private.
                                     Montgomery............         2 (23b)      1968-05-07      1992-04-28               1  private.
                                                                    13 (30)      1975-05-25      1975-05-25             n/a  private.
                                                                    18 (35)      1967-06-01      1967-06-01             n/a  private.
                                                                         31      1979-04-09      1979-04-09  ..............  private.
                                     Smith.................         20 (24)      1992-05-01      1998-04-17              30  private; COE easement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Occurrences observed by Shea (1993), but which are now considered extirpated.
\+\ Occurrences not documented in Shea (1993) that have been observed since 1992, but which are now considered extirpated.
COE is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Pres is present.

    No records exist in State-maintained databases for seven 
populations that Shea (1993, pp. 12-13) treated as historical or 
lacking sufficient locality information to verify (population number 41 
from Kentucky, and numbers 36 and 46 through 50 from Tennessee). 
Therefore, Table 1 and Table 2 do not include entries for these Shea 
population numbers. Shea (1993, p. 15) also determined that four 
historical reports for the species were erroneous: One each from Monroe 
County, Indiana, and Vinton County, Ohio; and one each from unknown 
counties in Kansas and Vermont.
    There are now 8 known extant occurrences in Kentucky, 17 in 
Tennessee, and 1 in Posey County, Indiana (Table 1). Extant occurrences 
in Kentucky are distributed among Clark (1), Franklin (6), and Woodford 
(1) Counties, and in Tennessee among Cheatham (5), Davidson (2), 
Dickson (1), Jackson (2), Montgomery (3), Smith (1), and Trousdale (2) 
Counties. One Tennessee occurrence straddles the county line between 
Cheatham and Davidson Counties. There are 19 occurrences in Kentucky 
and 10 in Tennessee that have either been extirpated or for which 
inadequate information exists to relocate them. Adding the seven 
populations that Shea (1993, p. 12-13) treated as either historical or 
lacking complete locality information, and which are not represented in 
State-maintained databases used to create Tables 1 and 2, these numbers 
rise to 20 for Kentucky and 16 for Tennessee. Thus, there is a total of 
62 occurrences that have been reported for Short's bladderpod. However, 
when reporting percentages of all known occurrences that are now or 
historically were in the case of extirpated occurrences, affected by 
various threats, we only use the 55 records that have been verified and 
are currently tracked in State-maintained databases.
    There are 19 extant Short's bladderpod occurrences that are located 
on city, State, or federal lands. The Indiana occurrence is on lands 
owned by the State of Indiana and managed by the Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR). A portion of one occurrence in Kentucky is 
located in a State nature preserve owned and managed by the Kentucky 
State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC), and another occurs in a park 
owned by the City of Frankfort, where access is limited, but no 
specific management is provided for the species or its habitat. In 
Tennessee, there are 15 occurrences that are entirely or partially 
located on lands owned or leased by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps) adjacent to the Cumberland River. Some of these Corps lands are 
wildlife management areas (WMA) cooperatively managed by the Tennessee 
Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). The plants at EO numbers 29 and 32 
are located in TWRA's Cheatham WMA, and those at EO numbers 24 through 
27 are located in TWRA's Cordell Hull WMA. Part of one occurrence in 
Tennessee is located on lands owned by Ashland City.
    Habitat. Short's bladderpod typically grows on steep, rocky, wooded 
slopes and talus (sloping mass of rock fragments below a bluff or 
ledge) areas. It also occurs along tops, bases, and ledges of bluffs. 
The species usually is found in these habitats near rivers or streams 
and on south- to west-facing slopes. Most populations are closely 
associated with calcareous outcrops (Shea 1993, p. 16). The Short's 
bladderpod site in Indiana, where the species is found in a narrow 
strip of herbaceous vegetation between a road and forested bank of a 
cypress slough (M. Homoya, Natural Heritage Program Botanist, Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), December 2012), is unique among 
populations of the species. The occurrence in Indiana is within the 
Shawnee Hills Section of the Interior Low Plateaus Physiographic 
Province (Quarterman and Powell 1978, pp. 30-31), on a site underlain 
by undifferentiated outwash from the Wisconsinan glaciation (Indiana 
Geologic Survey 2002) as opposed to the calcareous geology on which the 
species occurs in Kentucky and Tennessee. The soil at the Indiana site 
is Weinbach silt loam, which forms in acid alluvium on river terraces, 
and is nearly level with 0 to 2 percent slopes (USDA 1979, p. 89). This 
site is on a terrace adjacent to an oxbow swamp formed in an abandoned 
meander of the Wabash River (Quarterman and Powell 1978, p. 244).
    Kentucky occurrences are located on bluffs and hillsides adjacent 
to the Kentucky River or its tributaries within the Bluegrass Section 
of the Interior Low Plateaus Province (Fenneman 1938, pp. 411-448; 
Quarterman and Powell 1978, pp. 30-31). Extant occurrences in Kentucky 
predominantly are found on the Ordovician age Lexington Limestone and 
Tanglewood Limestone Members (Kentucky Geological Survey, http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d32dc6edbf9245cdbac3fd7e255d3974, 
accessed on January 25, 2013), and the Fairmount-Rock outcrop Complex 
is the prevalent soil type at most of the sites where the species is 
found (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Survey Geographic 
Database, available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov, 
accessed on January 30, 2013). Soils of the Fairmount series formed 
from

[[Page 47114]]

weathered limestone interbedded with thin layers of calcareous shale 
and are shallow, well-drained, and slowly permeable. As implied in the 
name of this complex, limestone outcrops are common on the steeply 
sloped sites where this soil occurs, especially along river bluffs 
(USDA 1985, p. 64).
    Tennessee occurrences are located primarily on steep hills or 
bluffs adjacent to the Cumberland River within the Highland Rim and 
Central (also known as Nashville) Basin Sections of the Interior Low 
Plateaus Province (Fenneman 1938, pp. 411-448; Quarterman and Powell 
1978, pp. 30-31). Three occurrences in Cheatham County are adjacent to 
the Harpeth River near its confluence with the Cumberland River. Extant 
occurrences in Tennessee are found across a wider range of geology and 
soils than those in Indiana or Kentucky. The Mississippian age Fort 
Payne Formation, which includes limestone and calcareous siltstone, and 
Warsaw Limestone are the predominant geologic formations underlying 
occurrences in Cheatham, Dickson, and Montgomery Counties (Moore et al. 
1967, Wilson 1972, Marsh et al. 1973, Finlayson et al. 1980). In 
Cheatham and Dickson Counties, the main soil mapped in locations where 
Short's bladderpod occurs is simply ``Rock outcrop, very steep'' (USDA, 
Soil Survey Geographic Database, available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed on January 30, 2013). In 
Montgomery County, Baxter soils and Rock outcrop and Bodine cherty silt 
loam are the soil types on which Short's bladderpod occurs (USDA, Soil 
Survey Geographic Database, available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed on January 30, 2013). Baxter soils 
formed from weathered cherty limestone, and where they are mapped as 
Baxter soils and Rock outcrop they are steeply sloped and Rock outcrop 
can make up as much as 20 percent of the map unit (USDA 1975, pp. 12-
14). Bodine soils are well-drained, cherty soils that formed from 
weathered cherty limestone; are steeply sloped; and include areas near 
the escarpment adjacent to the Cumberland River floodplain where cherty 
limestone bedrock is exposed (USDA 1975, pp. 16-17).
    Silurian age limestone and shale of the Waynes Group and the 
Brassfield Limestone and Ordovician age limestone of the Leipers and 
Catheys Formations are the predominant geologic formations underlying 
the occurrences located in Davidson County (Wilson 1979). The dominant 
soils on which Short's bladderpod occurs in this county are the Bodine-
Sulphura Complex (USDA, Soil Survey Geographic Database, available 
online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed on January 30, 
2013), which formed from weathered cherty limestone on sloping to very 
steep sites and are somewhat excessively well-drained. Depth to bedrock 
within Sulphura soils is less than 16 cm (40 in), but deeper in Bodine 
soils, and chert content is high near the surface of these soils (USDA 
1981, pp. 46-47).
    Ordovician age limestones of the Leipers and Cathey Formations, 
Bigby-Cannon Limestone, and Hermitage Formation are the predominant 
geologic formations underlying occurrences in Smith, Trousdale, and 
Jackson Counties (Wilson et al. 1972, Wilson 1975, Wilson et al. 1980, 
Kerrigan and Wilson 2002). In these counties, Short's bladderpod occurs 
across a wider range of soil series, all of which are formed from 
weathered limestone or interbedded siltstone and limestone on steeply 
sloped or hilly sites. The soils are shallow, are rocky, or contain 
areas of bedrock outcrop (USDA 2001, pp. 19-20, 28, 59, 64; USDA 2004a, 
pp. 22-23, 36-37, 83, 87; USDA 2004b, pp. 21, 75, 82).
    Within the physical settings described above, the most vigorous 
(Shea 1992, p. 24) and stable (TDEC 2009, p. 1) Short's bladderpod 
occurrences are found in forested sites where the canopy has remained 
relatively open over time. Common woody species associated with Short's 
bladderpod are Acer negundo (box elder), Acer rubrum (red maple), 
Aesculus glabra (Ohio buckeye), Celtis laevigata (hackberry), Cercis 
canadensis (redbud), Fraxinus Americana (white ash), Juniperus 
virginiana (eastern red cedar), Lonicera japonica (Japanese honey 
suckle), Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper), Symphoricarpos 
orbiculatus (coral berry) and Ulmus americana (American elm). Common 
herbaceous associates include Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard), 
Camassia scilloides (wild hyacinth), Chaerophyllum procumbens 
(spreading chervil), Delphinium tricorne (dwarf larkspur), Galium 
aparine (cleavers), Lamium sp. (dead nettle), Phacelia bipinnatifida 
(forest phacelia), Polygonatum biflorum (Solomon's seal), Sedum 
pulchellum (stonecrop), Silene virginica (fire-pink), and Verbascum 
thapsus (common mullein) (Shea 1993, p. 19).
    Biology. Published literature on the biology of Short's bladderpod 
is lacking. The species flowers during April and May (Gleason and 
Chronquist 1991, p. 187, Shea 1993, p. 20). Dr. Carol Baskin 
(Professor, University of Kentucky, pers. comm., December 2012) 
observed low fruit set in the Indiana population and, based on lack of 
seed production from plants in a greenhouse from which pollinators were 
excluded, she concluded that the species likely is self-incompatible. 
Self-incompatibility has been reported in other species of Physaria 
(Tepedino et al. 2012, p. 142; Edens-Meier et al. 2011, p. 292; 
Claerbout et al. 2007, p. 134; Bateman 1955, p. 64), and the molecular 
mechanisms underlying self-recognition between pollen and stigma and 
subsequent pollen rejection have been well studied in the Brassicaceae 
(Takayama and Isogai 2005, pp. 468-474). Dr. Baskin (pers. comm., 
December 2012) also observed that seeds produced by Short's bladderpod 
apparently are capable of forming a seed bank, as seeds that were 
planted in a greenhouse were observed to germinate and produce 
seedlings over several years, rather than all germinating in the year 
they were planted.
    The pollinators for Short's bladderpod have not been studied, but 
Rollins and Shaw (1973, p. 6) reported that bees and flies were 
repeatedly observed visiting flowers of other congeners. The majority 
of floral foragers observed visiting Physaria filiformis (Missouri 
bladderpod) were true bees representing five families, with greater 
than 50 percent from the family Halictidae. The families Apidae and 
Andrenidae also were well represented among bee pollinators of this 
species, the most dependable and frequent of which were ground-nesters. 
Several flies of the family Syrphidae also carried Missouri bladderpod 
pollen (Edens-Meier et al. 2011, pp. 293). Tepedino et al. (2012, pp. 
143-145) found that native ground-nesting bees from the families 
Andrenidae and Halictidae were the most reliable pollinators visiting 
flowers of three Physaria species, but they reported fewer numbers of 
pollen-carrying flies from the families Tachinidae and Conopidae. They 
estimated that maximum flight distance ranged from 100 to 1400 meters 
(m) (330 to 4593 feet (ft)) for the Andrenids and 40 to 100 m (130 to 
330 ft) for the Halictid bees they collected.
Whorled Sunflower
    Helianthus verticillatus is a member of the sunflower family known 
from Cherokee County, Alabama; Floyd County, Georgia; and McNairy and 
Madison Counties, Tennessee. It is a perennial arising from horizontal, 
tuberous-thickened roots with slender rhizomes. The stems are slender, 
erect, and up to 2 meters (m) (6 feet (ft)) tall. The leaves are 
opposite on the lower stem, verticillate (whorled) in groups of

[[Page 47115]]

3 to 4 at the mid-stem, and alternate or opposite in the inflorescence 
at the end. Individual leaves are firm in texture and have a prominent 
mid-vein, but lack prominent lateral veins found in many members of the 
genus. The leaves are linear-lanceolate in shape, narrowing at the tip 
to a point, and 7.5 to 18.5 cm (3.0 to 7.2 in.) long and 0.7 to 2.0 cm 
(0.3 to 0.8 in.) wide. The flowers are arranged in a branched 
inflorescence typically consisting of 3 to 7 heads. The heads are about 
1 cm high (0.4 in.), are about 1.5 cm (0.6 in.) wide, and have deep 
yellow ray flowers and lighter yellow disk flowers. The seeds are 0.4 
to 0.5 cm (0.16 to 0.2 in.) long.
    Several members of the aster family are similar in appearance to 
whorled sunflower, with minor morphological differences being apparent. 
Helianthus grosseserratus is similar to whorled sunflower but its 
leaves typically are arranged in an alternating pattern, which differs 
from the whorled arrangement of H. verticillatus. Helianthus 
angustifolius can be confused with H. verticillatus but it has narrower 
leaves and reddish disk flowers, as opposed to the yellow disk flowers 
of H. verticillatus (Schotz 2001, p. 1). Helianthus giganteus often 
exhibits whorled leaves, but H. verticillatus leaves have only the 
midvein prominent while H. giganteus has lateral veins evident on the 
leaves (Matthews et al. 2002, p. 22).
    Taxonomy. Whorled sunflower was described by J.K. Small (1898, p. 
479), based on a collection by S.M. Bain from Chester County, 
Tennessee, in 1892. Small distinguished it from the related H. 
giganteus by its smooth and hairless stems; narrow, entire leaf blades; 
and narrowly linear-lanceolate involucre (a collection or rosette of 
bracts subtending a flower cluster, umbel, or the like) bracts (a 
leaflike or scalelike plant part, usually small, sometimes showy or 
brightly colored, and located just below a flower, a flower stalk, or 
an inflorescence). No additional collections of this species had been 
made when Beatley (1963, p. 153) speculated that the specimens (which 
lacked basal parts and mature seeds) from this single collection site 
perhaps represented a single aberrant individual formed from 
hybridization of an opposite- and alternate-leaved Helianthus species. 
With no new material to examine, Heiser et al. (1969, p. 209) and 
Cronquist (1980, p. 36) accepted Beatley's suggestion that whorled 
sunflower was a hybrid.
    The rediscovery of the species in 1994, in Georgia, provided ample 
material for reexamination of this species' taxonomic status. Plants 
throughout these new populations were found to conform to the 
morphology of the type collection of whorled sunflower. Morphological 
studies and root-tip chromosome counts by Matthews et al. (2002, pp. 
17-23) validated this taxon's status as a distinct, diploid species. 
The taxonomic validity of this species was also confirmed through 
genetic studies by Ellis et al. (2006, pp. 2345-2355). Their studies 
showed through comparative genetic studies with its putative parents, 
H. grosseserratus and H. angustifolius, that whorled sunflower is a 
good taxonomic species of non-hybrid origin (Ellis et al. 2006, pp. 
2351-2352).
    Distribution and Status. There are four whorled sunflower 
populations known to be extant, each consisting of multiple tracked 
subpopulations (Table 3) (Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) 2012, 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), TNHID 2012). In Floyd 
County, Georgia, there is one population comprised of four 
subpopulations. There is one population in Cherokee County, Alabama, 
comprised of two subpopulations. Populations in Georgia and Alabama are 
less than 2 km (1.2 mi) apart. In Tennessee, there is one population 
comprised of six subpopulations in McNairy County and one population 
comprised of four subpopulations in Madison County. Table 3 lists these 
populations and subpopulations, and relates them to EO numbers used by 
State conservation agencies to track their status. The population in 
Floyd County, Georgia, is located on lands owned by The Campbell Group, 
a timber investment management organization. This site is referred to 
as the Coosa Valley Prairie and is protected by a conservation easement 
held by The Nature Conservancy, which jointly manages the property with 
The Campbell Group. All other sites also are on private lands but are 
not protected.

 Table 3--List of Whorled Sunflower Populations and Subpopulations by State and County, With Corresponding Site
   Names and Element Occurrence (EO) Numbers From State Conservation Agency Databases in Alabama, Georgia, and
                                                    Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Subpopulation
       Population (County, State)             number(s)              Site name              Heritage EO Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cherokee, AL............................                 1  Kanady Creek Prairie.......  AL--1
                                                         2  Locust Branch Prairie......  AL--2
Floyd, GA...............................                 1  Jefferson Road Wet Prairie.  GA--1
                                                         2  Kanady Creek Wet Prairie...  GA--4
                                                         3  Upper Mud Creek Wet          GA--5
                                                             Prairies.
                                                         4  Sunnybell Prairie..........  GA--7
Madison, TN.............................               1-6  Turk Creek.................  TN--2
McNairy, TN.............................               1-4  Prairie Branch.............  TN--3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Status surveys have been conducted for this species throughout its 
range (Nordman 1998, pp. 1-17; 1999, pp. 1-5; Schotz 2001, pp. 1-14; 
Allison 2002, pp. 1-2; Lincicome 2003, pp. 1-2). Despite these 
extensive surveys, the number of known populations remains low. Schotz 
(2001, pp. 1, 10) located 1 new population out of 44 attempts, 
representing a success rate of only 2 percent. Surveys during 2000 and 
2002 in Tennessee were unsuccessful at locating any additional sites 
(Lincicome 2003, pp. 1-2). Surveys in 2006 resulted in discovery of the 
population in McNairy County, Tennessee (Tennessee Division of Natural 
Areas 2008, p. 2).
    Initial efforts to estimate population sizes of whorled sunflower 
relied on counting individual stems (Allison 2002, pp. 3-8; Schotz 
2001, pp. 8-10); however, due to the species' clonal growth habit, stem 
counts overestimate the true number of genetically distinct individuals 
(genets). Ellis et al. (2006, p. 2349) found that the genetic 
population size is much smaller than the number of stems in a 
population and that a more accurate population census could be made at 
most whorled sunflower sites

[[Page 47116]]

by counting obvious clusters of stems rather than individual stems. 
However, Mandel (2010, p. 2056) reported that individual clusters were 
much less distinct in a portion of the Alabama site she sampled.
    Ellis et al. (2006, p. 2351) counted 70 distinct clusters at the 
site in Madison, Tennessee, which closely equated to 70 separate 
individuals through genetic analyses; however, not all clusters were 
sampled at this site (Mandel, pers. comm., 2012). At the McNairy 
County, Tennessee, population, 36 clusters of plants were found growing 
along creek banks at the unplowed edges of cultivated crop fields and 
extending into a railroad right-of-way (Tennessee Division of Natural 
Areas 2008, p. 3). Mandel (2010, p. 2056) sampled 19 clusters at the 
McNairy County population and determined these represented 24 genets; 
however, only two of the four subpopulations mapped at this population 
were sampled (Mandel, pers. comm., 2012).
    Mandel (2010, p. 2058) sampled the Alabama subpopulation number 1 
(Table 3) using two methods. In one portion of the site, leaf tissue 
was collected from 15 distinct clusters, which represented 24 genets. 
However, because distinct clusters were not obvious in another portion 
of this subpopulation, Mandel (2010, p. 2058) sampled leaves from the 
first 100 stalks encountered in a 1-meter-wide transect run through the 
largest patch of whorled sunflower in that area. These 100 stalks were 
within an approximately 11-m (40-ft) long portion of this transect, and 
represented 46 distinct genets. Mandel (2010, p. 58) estimated that 400 
stalks were present in this area and that the total number of genets 
was between 100 and 200. However, more recently only 79 stems, 
distributed among 8 clusters, were found at this site (Alabama Natural 
Heritage Program 2011, p. 11).
    Mandel (2010, p. 2056) sampled 15 clusters growing in a ``wet 
prairie'' at the Georgia site, presumably representing EO number 1 from 
the Georgia Natural Heritage Program database (Table 3). It was 
determined that these clusters represented 18 genets (Mandel 2010, p. 
2058), but apparently the other three subpopulations present at this 
population were not sampled. The true number of genets at this site is 
likely much greater, as others have reported vigorous growth of whorled 
sunflower in response to prescribed fires that are used to manage the 
Coosa Valley Prairie conservation easement area (M. Hodges, Georgia 
Director of Stewardship, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. May 2012; 
T. Patrick, Botanist, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, pers. 
comm. February 2012).
    Based on the work of Ellis (2006) and Mandel (2010), summarized 
above, at one time Alabama supported the largest population with an 
estimated 100 individuals at the Kanady Creek Prairie site, where 
whorled sunflower was first found to occur in the State. However, 
Schotz (2011, p. 11) found only 79 stems, distributed among 8 clusters, 
at this site in 2011. Mandel (2010) sampled only portions of the 
Georgia and Tennessee populations, thus underestimating their sizes. 
Whorled sunflower likely is now most abundant in Georgia due to 
population growth in response to habitat management by The Nature 
Conservancy and The Campbell Group at the Coosa Valley Prairie. Schotz 
estimated approximately 175 to 200 stems were present at the second 
Alabama site in September 2008 (Schotz pers. comm. 2009), but there 
were only 42 stems found at this site in 2011 (Schotz 2011, p. 14). No 
estimate of individual plants is available for this site.
    Habitat. Whorled sunflower is found in moist, prairie-like 
remnants, which in a more natural condition exist as openings in 
woodlands and adjacent to creeks. Today, the only whorled sunflower 
site where these habitat conditions are present over a relatively large 
area is located in the Coosa Valley Prairie of northwest Georgia, where 
the species occurs in prairie openings and woodlands interspersed among 
lands managed for pulpwood and timber production. At one of the Alabama 
subpopulations, whorled sunflower occurs in a narrow, open strip of 
vegetation between a roadside and adjacent forest. The second Alabama 
subpopulation occurs along a small intermittent stream and adjacent 
floodplain, in a site where an immature hardwood forest was harvested 
in 1998. Whorled sunflower and associated prairie species responded 
favorably to the timber removal, but the site was soon converted into a 
loblolly pine plantation and the planted seedlings have grown into a 
young, dense stand into which little light penetrates. As of 2012, 
there were few whorled sunflower plants or prairie associates present 
at this site. Known populations of this species in Tennessee are 
relegated mostly to narrow bands of habitat between cultivated fields 
and creeks and adjacent to roads and railroad rights-of-way. The 
largest concentration of plants in Tennessee is found at the Madison 
County population, in a 1-ha (2.5-ac) patch of remnant, wet prairie 
habitat wedged between US Highway 45 and a railroad right-of-way.
    The Alabama and Georgia populations are located on flat to gently 
rolling uplands and along stream terraces in the headwaters of Mud 
Creek, a tributary to the Coosa River. In Tennessee, the Madison County 
population occurs along Turk Creek, a tributary to the South Fork 
Forked Deer River, and in adjacent uplands. The McNairy County 
population occurs along Prairie Branch, a headwater tributary to Muddy 
Creek in the Tuscumbia River drainage.
    We used the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Web Soil 
Survey to determine the soil types on which whorled sunflower 
populations occur across its range (USDA, Web Soil Survey, available 
online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm, accessed 
on January 30, 2013). The most prevalent soils where the species occurs 
in Georgia are Conasauga, Lyerly, Townley, and Wolftever silt loams and 
Dowellton silty clay loam. The silt loam soils all formed from 
weathered limestone or shale, and occupy various land forms from broad 
upland ridges to low stream terraces. These soils share the 
characteristics of being moderately well-drained to well-drained, being 
slightly to extremely acid, and having low to moderate fertility and 
organic matter content and clayey subsoils (USDA 1978a, pp. 24-54). The 
Dowellton silty clay loam formed in alluvium (soil material deposited 
by running water) on low stream terraces and upland depressions is 
poorly drained, is moderate in fertility and organic content, is 
neutral to strongly acid, and has a clayey subsoil (USDA 1978a, pp. 28-
29).
    Alabama subpopulations inhabit the Gaylesville silty clay loam, a 
deep, poorly drained, slowly permeable soil formed from limestone on 
floodplains and depressed areas in limestone valleys (USDA 1978b, p. 
20). These soils are strongly to extremely acid, with low natural 
fertility and medium organic content (USDA 1978b, p. 20). Conasauga 
silt loams, discussed above, lay upslope of the Gaylesville soils at 
the Alabama whorled sunflower sites.
    In Madison County, Tennessee, the population is primarily found on 
Falaya silt loam, which are poorly drained soils that formed in 
alluvium derived from loess (loamy soil material believed to be 
deposited by wind) and are strongly to very strongly acid (USDA 1978, 
p. 44). The McNairy County, Tennessee, population occurs on Iuka and 
Enville fine sandy loam soils, both of which occupy floodplains and are 
occasionally flooded during winter and early spring (USDA 1997, pp. 73-
76).
    The list of associated species in these habitats indicates a 
community with

[[Page 47117]]

strong prairie affinities. Dominant grasses of the tall grass prairie 
are present including Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem), 
Sorghastrum nutans (Indian grass), Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), 
and Panicum virgatum (switch grass). Other common herbaceous associates 
include Bidens bipinnata (Spanish needles), Carex cherokeensis 
(Cherokee sedge), Hypericum sphaerocarpum (roundseed St. Johnswort), 
Helianthus angustifolius (swamp sunflower), Helenium autumnale (common 
sneezeweed), Lobelia cardinalis (cardinal flower), Pycnanthemum 
virginianum (Virginia mountain mint), Physostegia virginiana (obedient 
plant), Saccharum giganteum (sugarcane plumegrass), Silphium 
terebinthinaceum (prairie rosinweed), Sporobolus heterolepis (prairie 
dropseed), and Symphyotrichum novae-angliae (New England aster) 
(Tennessee Division of Natural Areas 2008, p. 5; Matthews et al. 2002, 
p. 23; Schotz 2001, p. 3). Some of these areas are also habitat for a 
number of other rare species including Marshallia mohrii (Mohr's 
Barbara's buttons), which is federally listed as threatened.
    Biology. There is little published information available concerning 
the biology of the whorled sunflower, and the cause for its current 
rarity is not known. Ellis et al. (2006, pp. 2349-2350) investigated 
genetic diversity in the Georgia, Alabama, and Madison County, 
Tennessee, populations of whorled sunflower and found high levels of 
genetic diversity at the population and species levels despite its 
apparent rarity. They speculated that this is indicative of a species 
that was more widespread in the past and perhaps became rare relatively 
recently (Ellis et al. 2006, pp. 2351-2352). Whorled sunflower 
populations exhibited moderate levels of differentiation based on 
markers that are presumed to be selectively neutral, and since these 
populations are geographically distinct and ecological conditions vary 
somewhat among them Ellis et al. (2006, p. 2353) concluded that they 
likely are as differentiated, if not more so, at adaptive loci (the 
specific location of a gene or DNA sequence on a chromosome).
    Whorled sunflower is a self-incompatible, clonal perennial and 
flowers from August into October (Matthews et al. 2002, pp. 17-20; 
Ellis and McCauley 2008, p. 1837). The species is easily cultivated and 
seed germination is high in the laboratory. Upon transplanting, this 
species has been shown to reproduce rapidly from rhizomes (a horizontal 
underground stem that produces roots and shoots), creating dense 
colonies. The stems can reach over 4 m (13 ft) in height (Matthews et 
al. 2002, pp. 17-20).
    Ellis and McCauley (2008, p. 1837) investigated whether there were 
differences among populations of whorled sunflower with respect to 
achene viability and germination rates and whether those differences 
might have a genetic basis. They conducted this experiment for two 
generations of plants, the second generation produced from intra-
population crosses of first generation plants. They also explored 
whether isolation of populations from one another could have fitness 
consequences, by conducting inter-population crosses and evaluating 
whether they found: (1) Evidence of genetic rescue expressed as higher 
fitness of hybrid individuals as compared to any or all of the parental 
populations; and (2) evidence of outbreeding depression. Their study 
included material from the Alabama, Georgia, and Madison County, 
Tennessee, populations. However, they were unsuccessful in cultivating 
plants from the Georgia population, where the flower heads contained 
few viable achenes, which produced low germination rates (Ellis and 
McCauley 2008, pp. 1837-1838).
    The number of crosses that produced no viable achenes was higher in 
the intra-population Tennessee crosses than in any other pair of 
crossings. Those achenes that were produced by first generation 
Tennessee intra-population crosses exhibited lower germination rates 
than Alabama achenes, and second generation Tennessee achenes from 
intra-population crosses exhibited both lower viability and germination 
rates than the Alabama achenes. However, survival rates of germinated 
achenes did not differ among these populations in either generation 
(Ellis and McCauley 2008, p. 1840). Ellis and McCauley (2008, p. 1840) 
suggested three possible mechanisms that could explain these results, 
none of which are mutually exclusive: (1) Limited mate availability in 
the Tennessee population due to limited diversity of self-
incompatibility alleles; (2) more extensive inbreeding within the 
Tennessee population; or (3) differential adaptation between the two 
populations.
    When Tennessee plants were crossed with pollen from Alabama plants, 
the second generation mean achene viability and germination rates were 
equal to or greater than those of Alabama intra-population crosses or 
Alabama plants crossed with pollen from Tennessee plants. Mean achene 
viability of Tennessee intra-population second generation crosses was 
lower than all other groups and germination rates were lower than both 
Alabama intra-population crosses and Alabama plants crossed with pollen 
from Tennessee plants (Ellis and McCauley 2008, pp. 1839-1840).
    Based on their results, Ellis and McCauley (2008, p. 1841) 
concluded that populations of whorled sunflower are not interchangeable 
with respect to phenotypic fitness-related characters (i.e., achene 
viability and germination rates) and suggested that the potential 
exists for genetic rescue of the Tennessee population by transplanting 
either seeds or seedlings produced from crosses between Tennessee and 
Alabama plants into the Tennessee population.
Fleshy-fruit Gladecress
    Leavenworthia crassa is a glabrous (morphological feature is 
smooth, glossy, having no trichomes (bristles or hair-like structures)) 
winter annual known from Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama. It 
usually grows from 10 to 30 cm (4 to 12 in) tall. The leaves are mostly 
basal, forming a rosette, and entire to very deeply, pinnately 
(multiple leaflets attached in rows along a central stem) lobed or 
divided, to 8 cm (3.1 in) long. Flowers are on elongating stems, and 
the petals are approximately 0.8 to 1.5 cm (0.3 to 0.6 in.) long, 
obovate to spatulate, and emarginate (notched at the tip). Flower color 
is either yellow with orange or white with yellow, usually with both 
color forms intermixed in a single population. The fruit is globe-
shaped or slightly more elongate and about 1.2 cm (0.5 in) long with a 
slender beak at the tip, which is 0.25 to 0.60 cm (0.1 to 0.24 in) in 
length. Seeds are dark brown, nearly round in shape and winged.
    Taxonomy. Fleshy-fruit gladecress was described by Rollins in 1963, 
from material collected in 1959, from Morgan County, Alabama. Rollins 
(1963, pp. 61-68) delineated the species into two varieties (var. 
crassa and var. elongata) based on differences in fruit length. 
However, herbarium and field studies have shown var. elongata to have 
variation in fruit length within the range of fruit lengths for var. 
crassa (McDaniel and Lyons 1987, p. 2-3). Thus, the species is treated 
as one taxon throughout this document. This taxon was brought to the 
attention of the scientific community in 1957, by venerable botanist 
Reed C. Rollins, who distinguished the taxon from similar species based 
on reproductive morphology.
    Fleshy-fruit gladecress's globular to oblong fruit with a smooth 
exterior distinguishes it from another gladecress

[[Page 47118]]

species, Leavenworthia alabamica (Alabama gladecress), which has a much 
more elongated linear fruit with corrugated surfaces. Alabama 
gladecress also does not usually have the yellow and orange flower 
forms found mixed in populations of fleshy-fruit gladecress (McDaniel 
and Lyons 1987, p. 10).
    Distribution and Status. Fleshy-fruit gladecress is endemic to a 
21-km (13-mi) radius area in north central Alabama in Lawrence and 
Morgan Counties (Rollins 1963, p. 63). A 1961 record from Lauderdale 
County has never been confirmed (McDaniel and Lyons 1987, p. 6). 
Surveys by Lyons (in litt. 1981 to R. Sutter), McDaniel and Lyons 
(1987, p. 5-6), and Hilton (1997, p. 12) were unsuccessful at locating 
a number of historical sites for fleshy-fruit gladecress. McDaniel and 
Lyons (1987) failed to locate eight sites previously reported by 
Rollins (1963, p. 63), and Lloyd (1965) and Hilton (1997, p.12) were 
unsuccessful at locating seven sites listed in McDaniel and Lyons 
(1987, p. 5-6).
    Currently there are six known extant occurrences of fleshy-fruit 
gladecress documented, three each in Morgan and Lawrence Counties, 
Alabama (Table 4). One of these occurs on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 
lands, where it is formally protected. The majority of other sites are 
actively grazed, a practice that has, for the most part, maintained 
favorable growing conditions for the species. However, adjusting 
grazing patterns to take place during the species' dormant cycle would 
greatly reduce potential mortality of reproducing plants while 
maintaining ideal habitat conditions.

 Table 4--Location, Site Names and Descriptions, and Element Occurrence (EO) Ranks for Known Extant Fleshy-Fruit
                                             Gladecress Occurrences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Population                        Historic site
             County                    designation        EO Rank         description           Land ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence........................  Bluebird Glades.....  D.........  Described by ALNHP in    Private & State
                                                                     1995 as approx. 0.2-ha   ROW.
                                                                     (0.5-ac) site with
                                                                     1200 plants; by 2009
                                                                     was reduced to 600
                                                                     plants.
                                  Stover Branch Glades  C.........  Two subpopulations,      Private.
                                                                     most in pasture, 3.16
                                                                     ha (7.8 ac); 2,200 to
                                                                     2,500 plants;
                                                                     maintained by
                                                                     livestock management,
                                                                     found in 1961.
                                  Indian Tomb Hollow    A.........  0.46-ha (1.1-ac) site    Federal--USFS.
                                   Glade.                            with 1,200 to 1,300
                                                                     plants; discovered
                                                                     1977.
Morgan..........................  Cedar Plains South..  C.........  0.04-ha (0.1-ac) site    Private.
                                                                     with 75 to 100 plants;
                                                                     discovered 1968.
                                  Cedar Plains North..  B.........  1.7-ha (4.2-ac) site     Private.
                                                                     with 5,000 to 6,000
                                                                     plants; discovered
                                                                     1968.
                                  Massey Glade........  C.........  2.75-ha (6.8-ac) site    Private.
                                                                     with 2,300 to 2,500
                                                                     plants; discovered
                                                                     1961.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALNHP is the Alabama Natural Heritage Program.
ROW is right-of-way.

    The Alabama Natural Heritage Program determines EO ranks ranging 
from A to D for sites and populations of rare species, with A 
indicating the status of the EO is considered to be excellent, B good, 
C marginal, and D poor. The EO rank is based on a combination of 
standardized criteria including quality, condition, viability, and 
defensibility. Hilton (1997, pp. 13-26) developed the specific criteria 
for determining EO ranks for fleshy-fruit gladecress and its habitat. 
Based on these criteria, only one of the six occurrences is A-ranked. 
It consists of an estimated 1200+ plants in a relatively undisturbed 
glade (Schotz 2009, p. 10). Of the remaining occurrences, one has 
approximately 5,000 to 6,000 plants, but is B-ranked because the site 
where it is located is heavily grazed. Three occurrences are C-ranked 
(2 occurrences have approximately 2400 plants in a degraded glade 
community; the other occurrence has 75 to 100 plants but is located in 
high-quality habitat), and one is D-ranked (600 plants in a residential 
area with no potential for habitat restoration) (Schotz 2009).
    Habitat. This species is a component of glade flora and occurs in 
association with limestone outcroppings. The terms ``glade'' and 
``cedar glades'' are used interchangeably to refer to shallow-soiled, 
open areas that are dominated by herbaceous plants and characterized by 
exposed sheets of limestone or gravel. Eastern red cedar (Juniperus 
virginiana) trees are frequent in the deeper soils along the edges of 
the glades (Hilton 1997, p. 1; Baskin et al. 1986, p. 138; Baskin and 
Baskin 1985, p. 1). Glades can vary in size from as small as a few 
square meters to larger than 1 square kilometer (km\2\) (0.37 square 
miles (mi\2\)) and are characterized as having an open, sunny aspect 
(lacking canopy) (Quarterman 1950, p. 1; Rollins 1963, p. 5). 
Historically, glades in northern Alabama occurred as glade complexes 
where sparsely vegetated patches of exposed, or nearly exposed, 
limestone occurred in a matrix of woody vegetation to form a mosaic of 
habitats grading into one another (Hilton 1997, pp. 1, 5, 64). 
Herbaceous diversity was irregular over these complexes, affected by 
changes in soil gradient and moisture, and the presence or absence of a 
woody vegetation component. Few undisturbed examples of this community 
type remain (Hilton 1997, pp. 5, 8; McDaniel and Lyons 1987, p. 11; 
Baskin and Baskin 1985, p. 1; Rollins 1963, p. 5-6).
    Populations of fleshy-fruit gladecress are now located in glade-
like remnants exhibiting various degrees of disturbance, including 
pastures, roadside rights-of-way, and cultivated or plowed fields 
(Hilton 1997, p. 5). As with most of the cedar glade endemics, fleshy-
fruit gladecress exhibits weedy tendencies, and it is not uncommon to 
find the species growing in altered habitats. However, none of the 
cedar glade endemics appear to have spread very far from their original 
glade habitats; thus the geographic range of fleshy fruit gladecress is 
probably very similar to what it was in pre-settlement times (Baskin et 
al. 1986, p. 140).
    All species within the small genus Leavenworthia are adapted to the 
unique physical characteristics of glade habitats, perhaps the most 
important of these being a combination of shallow

[[Page 47119]]

depth and high calcium content of soils and their tendency to have 
temporarily high moisture content at or very near the surface (Rollins 
1963, pp. 4-6). Typically, only a few inches of soil overlie the 
bedrock, or, in spots, the soil may be almost lacking and the surface 
barren. The glade habitats that support all Leavenworthia species are 
extremely wet during the late winter and early spring, and become 
extremely dry in summer (Rollins 1963, p. 5).
    In northern Alabama, cedar glades primarily are distributed within 
the Moulton Valley subdivision of the Interior Low Plateau 
Physiographic Province, and a few glades are scattered up the Eastern 
Valley subdivision of the Tennessee Valley (Hilton 1997, p. 1). Most of 
these glades are concentrated in the Moulton Valley, a level area 
underlain by Mississippian age limestone stretching across Morgan, 
Lawrence, Franklin, and Colbert Counties in northwestern Alabama. 
Glades occur in association with outcrops of Bangor Limestone and 
typically are level with exposed sheets of limestone or limestone 
gravel interspersed with fingers of cedar-hardwood vegetation. The 
Bangor Limestone underlying the Moulton Valley tapers to an end in 
eastern Morgan County, where it meets the sandstone of Brindley 
Mountain. Limestone is often near the soil surface, and can be seen in 
rocky cultivated fields and as small outcroppings at the base of low-
lying forested hills (Hilton 1997).
    Biology. Fleshy-fruit gladecress is an annual, spring-flowering 
member of the mustard family (Brassicaceae). As an annual, the seeds 
germinate in the fall, overwinter as rosettes, and commence a month-
long flowering period beginning in mid-March. The first seeds mature in 
late April, and during most years the plants dry and drop all of their 
seeds by the end of May. It is unlikely that all seeds produced in 
spring germinate the next fall, but the length of dormancy in the soil 
is not known (McDaniel and Lyons 1987, p. 10); thus we do not know 
whether the species is capable of forming a seed bank. Native bees in 
the families' Andrenidae and Halictidae (sweat bees), including the 
species Halictus ligatus (sweat bee), were observed carrying pollen 
from Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit gladecress) and L. alabamica 
(Alabama gladecress) in northern Alabama (Lloyd 1965).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based 
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

Short's Bladderpod

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range
    Shea (1993, pp. 22-23 and 42-92) and Tennessee Department of 
Environment and Conservation (2009, p. 1-3) discussed several threats 
that have destroyed or modified Short's bladderpod habitat and could 
cause further habitat loss or modification in the future. These include 
transportation right-of-way construction and maintenance; impoundments 
and reservoir water level manipulation; overstory shading due to forest 
succession; competition and shading from invasive, nonnative plant 
species; trash dumping; commercial and residential construction; and 
livestock grazing. Predictions of increased frequency, duration, and 
intensity of droughts across the species' range, and increased flooding 
in the Midwest region, could portend adverse effects for Short's 
bladderpod and its habitat. We discuss each of these threats in greater 
detail below.
Transportation Right-of-Way Construction and Maintenance
    During the status survey for this species, Shea (1993, p. 22) 
observed that Short's bladderpod habitat at three sites (Kentucky EO 7; 
Tennessee EOs 7, 14) had been destroyed or degraded by road 
construction or maintenance activities. Neither of these Tennessee 
occurrences is extant today (TNHID 2012). Shea (1993, p. 60) observed 
48 plants at Kentucky EO 7 in 1992, but noted that the population had 
been much more extensive prior to improvements of U.S. 421. Shea (1993, 
p. 22) also indicated that roadside maintenance posed a continuing 
threat to the species at this location. Although approximately 100 
Short's bladderpod plants were observed on a steep slope above the road 
cut adjacent to Kentucky EO 7 in 2004 (KNHP 2012), no plants were found 
at the base of the bluff, where 21 plants had been observed in 1992 
(Shea 1993, p. 60) before the road cut had altered the habitat. Poorly 
timed mowing or indiscriminate herbicide application along the road cut 
at the base of this bluff could cause mortality of seedlings produced 
there from seeds that are dispersed from the plants on the slope above. 
According to data from the KNHP (2012), a road cut was present in 2004, 
and no Short's bladderpod could be found at Kentucky EO 2, where in 
1992 Shea (1993, p. 52) observed 11 Short's bladderpod plants and 
observed no apparent threats to the population. Much of the habitat 
downslope of a road, where Tennessee EO 20 once occurred but is no 
longer extant, was found to be covered with rip rap in 2008, and the 
remaining habitat above and below the road was overgrown (TDEC 2009, p. 
10). Road construction destroyed suitable habitat around Tennessee EO 
23, and Short's bladderpod is no longer present at the site (TNHID 
2012). Based on these data, five Short's bladderpod occurrences (9 
percent) have been lost to habitat destruction or modification 
associated with road construction or maintenance.
    Shea (1993, p. 22) identified roadside maintenance as a threat to 
12 occurrences, including two discussed above: Indiana EO 1; Kentucky 
EOs 1 through 4, 7, 19, and 23; and Tennessee EOs 2, 4, 10, and 22. In 
addition, Kentucky EO 27 is located along a mowed roadside (KNHP 2012), 
and TDEC (2009, p. 2) reported that Tennessee EOs 3 and 15 could be 
affected by roadside maintenance. Indiana EO 1 is an extant roadside 
occurrence, where the species' persistence depends on periodic clearing 
of competing vegetation and associated soil disturbance to prevent 
succession of the vegetation at the site to a forested condition that 
would be unsuitable for Short's bladderpod (Homoya, pers. comm., 
December 2012). Nonetheless, poorly timed mowing or indiscriminate 
herbicide application could negatively affect this occurrence by 
disrupting reproductive cycles or causing direct mortality of Short's 
bladderpod plants. In total, roadside maintenance has been identified 
as a threat to 15 occurrences.
    Short's bladderpod is considered extirpated from four of the eight 
sites in Kentucky where roadside maintenance has been identified as a 
threat to the species. Neither Kentucky EO 2, lost to road construction 
as discussed above, nor EO 3 is extant. No plants were

[[Page 47120]]

found at Kentucky EO 3 during searches in 2004 and 2008; however, only 
a few plants had been observed here in 1994 and earlier (KNHP 2012), 
and the cause for the species' current absence is not known. Despite 
the presence of 17 Short's bladderpod plants at Kentucky EO 19 during 
2005, none were found during visits in 2004 and 2011 (KNHP 2012). While 
roadside maintenance could have contributed to loss of this population, 
observations by Kentucky Natural Heritage Program (2012) indicate that 
shading or competition from invasive species is likely a primary cause. 
Short's bladderpod was last seen at Kentucky EO 27 in 1993, when seven 
plants were found along a mowed roadside dominated by fescue and other 
weeds (KNHP 2012). This occurrence was determined to be extirpated 
during a 2011 site visit by KNHP (2012) staff.
    Short's bladderpod remains extant at four of the eight sites in 
Kentucky where roadside maintenance has been identified as a threat to 
the species. Kentucky EO 1 is considered extant, but only three Short's 
bladderpod plants--two in 1992, and one in 2009--have been observed at 
this site since the species was first observed there in 1975. Kentucky 
EO 4 was treated as two separate populations by Shea (1993, pp. 62-65), 
which are now tracked as a single occurrence (KNHP 2012). While some 
plants at the base of the cliff where Kentucky EO 4 is located are 
vulnerable to roadside mowing or herbicide application, many of the 
plants are on the cliff face and associated ledges, and no impacts from 
roadside maintenance have been documented. Short's bladderpod abundance 
at this occurrence has ranged from a low of approximately 56 
individuals in 1998, to a high of at least 400 individuals in 2004 
(KNHP 2012). As discussed above, there were approximately 100 plants 
observed above the road cut at Kentucky EO 7, but roadside maintenance 
could prevent plants from becoming established at the base of the road 
cut. Kentucky EO 23 has ranged in abundance from a low of 60 plants in 
2008, to a high of at least 430 plants in 2001. In 2011, there were 
more than 500 seedlings present at this site, but no flowering plants 
were observed. While this occurrence is located near a roadside, there 
have been no documented impacts from roadside maintenance.
    Short's bladderpod is considered extirpated from two of the seven 
sites in Tennessee where roadside maintenance has been identified as a 
threat to the species. At Tennessee EO 2, TDEC (2009, p. 5) found the 
habitat to be too overgrown and Short's bladderpod absent during a 
search in 1998, and no plants were found during a monitoring visit in 
2008. As noted above, Short's bladderpod was no longer present when 
TDEC (2009, p. 10) observed in 2008 that the roadside habitat at 
Tennessee EO 20 had been covered with rip rap and the remaining habitat 
above and below the road was overgrown.
    Short's bladderpod remains extant at five of the seven sites in 
Tennessee where roadside maintenance has been identified as a threat to 
the species. More than 500 Short's bladderpod plants were found at 
Tennessee EO 3 in 2008 (TDEC 2009, p. 6), where Shea (1993, p. 89) 
found 40 plants in 1992. This occurrence is located along a south-
facing wooded slope, north of the Cumberland River, but very little of 
its habitat would be vulnerable to maintenance associated with the road 
right-of-way to the immediate west. Tennessee EOs 4 and 10 are located 
along a roadside approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) apart, and both 
occurrences are estimated to number in the hundreds to thousands of 
plants (TDEC 2009, p. 6-8). While roadside maintenance could adversely 
affect plants located along the base of the roadside bluffs on which 
they occur, the majorities of these occurrences are located on ledges 
and bluff tops where roadside maintenance would be unlikely to affect 
them. Tennessee EO 15 is a small occurrence located adjacent to a 
bridge, on a steep limestone bluff overlooking the Harpeth River. While 
no impacts from roadside maintenance have been observed, no more than 
20 plants have ever been counted at this occurrence. Biologists from 
TDEC (2009, p. 11) found approximately 35 plants at Tennessee EO 22, 
where Shea (1993, p. 85) found 43 reproductive plants in 1992. No 
impacts from roadside maintenance were noted during this site visit.
    Four Short's bladderpod occurrences (7 percent) apparently have 
been lost to road construction or roadside maintenance. While 10 of the 
known extant occurrences (38 percent) are located along roadsides, 
where maintenance activities such as mowing or herbicide application 
could affect them, there have been few documented examples of such 
effects. In many roadside locations, Short's bladderpod occurs on steep 
slopes or bluffs, where roadside maintenance would be unlikely to 
affect the species unless the road was widened, requiring alteration or 
removal of the slope or bluff. Moreover, well-timed and carefully 
executed right-of-way maintenance intended to control vegetation 
encroachment could be beneficial by reducing shading and competition. 
Nonetheless, the potential exists for road widening projects or 
vegetation management efforts along road rights-of-way to destroy or 
modify habitat, cause mortality of individual plants, or diminish 
reproductive output at a large proportion of sites where the species 
occurs.
    There are seven extant Short's bladderpod occurrences, and three 
sites from which the species is thought to be extirpated, located in or 
adjacent to the Old Tennessee Central Railroad right-of-way (TDEC 2009, 
p. 3, TNHID 2012), portions of which are not actively used or 
maintained or have been sold to other rail companies. There were 
hundreds to thousands of Short's bladderpod plants each at three of 
these occurrences (Tennessee EOs 1, 10, and 17) when TDEC (2009, p. 4) 
monitored the species in 2008. The Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning 
Organization (NAMPO) (2010, p. 98) 2035 Regional Transportation Plan 
reported that the Old Tennessee Central Railroad, which follows the 
Cumberland River and passes through Ashland City, was found to be the 
most practical alignment for a proposed commuter rail to improve 
intercity commute options between the cities of Nashville and 
Clarksville, Tennessee. While no plans have been produced for 
developing this proposed commuter rail system, the 2035 Regional 
Transportation Plan states that this transportation option should be 
developed by 2017 (NAMPO 2010, p. 98). Habitat modification or 
destruction resulting from such development could potentially affect 27 
percent of the known extant occurrences of the species, including some 
occurrences where the species is most abundant.
Flooding and Water Level Fluctuation
    Shea (1993, pp. 22-23) and TDEC (2009, p. 2) noted that 
impoundments and artificial water level manipulation threatened several 
Short's bladderpod occurrences. This threat might be better 
characterized as flooding and water level fluctuation, regardless of 
cause, as some occurrences in free-flowing river reaches are vulnerable 
to this threat. For example, the Indiana occurrence is located near an 
oxbow lake that was created in a relict channel of the Wabash River, 
and it is periodically inundated by floodwaters from the river. In 
2011, this occurrence was subjected to a prolonged flood that killed 
most of the Short's bladderpod plants at this location (Homoya, pers. 
comm., November 2012). There were thousands of seedlings present at 
this site in 2010, and this flood event likely eliminated the 
recruitment of most, if not all, of those seedlings into the 
population. At

[[Page 47121]]

least 100 plants were present at this site in 2012 (Homoya, pers. 
comm., November 2012); however, it is not known whether these were 
survivors of the flood or new plants that had sprouted from the seed 
bank.
    There are seven Tennessee occurrences that TDEC (2009, p. 2) 
reported could be affected by water level manipulation. One of these, 
Tennessee EO 3, is located on a wooded slope above the upper reaches of 
waters impounded by Old Hickory Lake. There were more than 500 plants 
at this location in 2008, and the position of Short's bladderpod within 
the forested area above the zone of routine water level fluctuation is 
unlikely to be affected by manipulation of water levels in the lake. 
Shea (1993, p. 90) did not mention water level manipulation in her 
assessment of threats to this occurrence. Tennessee EO 20, also in the 
upper reaches of Old Hickory Lake, is presumed extirpated but was 
likely lost to placement of rip rap along the roadside where it occurs, 
as discussed above (please see Transportation Right-of-Way Construction 
and Maintenance). Tennessee EO 12 is located on bluffs overlooking the 
Cumberland River but not within an area managed as a reservoir or lake. 
Shea (1993, pp. 22-23) was unable to find this occurrence in 1992, and 
concluded that flooding at the base of the bluff was the cause. In 
2008, TDEC (2009, p. 8) found approximately 50 plants at Tennessee EO 
12, but they considered Short's bladderpod habitat to be vulnerable to 
flooding at this site due to water level fluctuation and the position 
of the plants at a low elevation on the bluff. Tennessee EOs 24 through 
27 are found in soil at the river bank or on bedrock ledges within 
about 1.5 m (5 ft) of the waters of Cordell Hull Reservoir (TNHID 
2012), but, with the exception of EO 27, no more than 10 plants have 
ever been counted at any of these sites. These three occurrences are 
vulnerable to the effects of water level fluctuation, as evidenced by 
observed erosion within the fluctuation zone (TNHID 2012). Tennessee EO 
27 appears to be at little risk of habitat alteration due to water 
level fluctuation, as it is located on bluff ledges above the zone of 
routine water level fluctuation.
    While the threat of flooding or water level fluctuation is present 
at only five extant occurrences (19 percent), one of these is the only 
Indiana population of the species, where the species has numbered in 
excess of 1,000 plants in the past (Homoya, pers. comm., November 
2012). The four occurrences in Tennessee threatened by water level 
fluctuation are small and vulnerable to extirpation from even limited 
habitat alteration or inundation.
Overstory Shading
    The most vigorous (Shea 1992, p. 24) and stable (TDEC 2009, p. 1) 
Short's bladderpod occurrences are found in locations where the canopy 
has remained relatively open over time. Overstory shading appears to 
have been a factor contributing to the disappearance of Short's 
bladderpod at three sites in Kentucky (EO numbers 9, 19, and 20) and 
one in Tennessee (EO 2) where Shea (1992, p. 4) observed heavy shading 
as a threat to the species in 1992. Overstory shading has been 
identified as a threat to Indiana EO 1 (INHDC 2012), Kentucky EO 22 
(KNHP 2012), and Tennessee EOs 10, 21, and 24 (TNHID 2012), or 19 
percent of known extant occurrences. Based on these data, canopy 
shading has been implicated as a factor contributing to the 
disappearance of Short's bladderpod from four sites and has been 
identified as a limiting factor at nearly one-fifth of remaining extant 
occurrences.
Competition With Nonnative Plant Species
    Competition with or shading from invasive, nonnative herbaceous and 
shrub species are cited in notes concerning threats in database records 
for three of Kentucky's (EO numbers 4, 11, and 18) (KNHP 2012) and five 
of Tennessee's (EO numbers 8, 10, 22, 24, and 26) (TNHID 2012) extant 
Short's bladderpod occurrences. Homoya (pers. comm., December 2012) 
also lists invasive species among the threats affecting the single 
Indiana occurrence. The species most often mentioned by these agencies 
include Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle), L. maackii (bush 
honeysuckle), Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard), and Bromus tectorum 
(downy brome grass); however, several other invasive, nonnative species 
occur in sites where Short's bladderpod exists, including Ligustrum 
spp. (privet), Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose), and Glechoma 
hederacea (ground ivy). Competition with or shading from these species 
adversely affects Short's bladderpod. While this threat has been 
specifically noted at approximately one-third of Short's bladderpod 
occurrences, it likely is more widespread among occurrences of the 
species and has not been reported in database records.
Trash Dumping
    Shea (1993, p. 22) identified three Short's bladderpod sites at 
which trash dumping posed a threat (Kentucky EOs 1 and 19, Tennessee EO 
20). The species is no longer found at two of these sites: Kentucky EO 
19, where canopy shading has been implicated in the species' absence, 
and Tennessee EO 20, where most of the habitat for the species has been 
covered by rip-rap. While Short's bladderpod is presumed to be extant 
at Kentucky EO 1, there was only one plant found at this site in 2009 
(KNHP 2012). The species was first collected at this site in 1957, and 
despite several site visits between then and 2009, only two plants were 
seen there in 1992 (KNHP 2012). TDEC (2009, p. 3) lists trash dumping 
as a general threat to Short's bladderpod, but provides no specific 
information to support this conclusion.
Livestock Grazing
    Livestock grazing historically presented a threat to Short's 
bladderpod, but we are not aware of any threats currently posed by this 
land use. In addition to potentially causing direct harm to or loss of 
individual plants, livestock grazing on the steeply sloped sites where 
Short's bladderpod typically occurs could increase soil erosion, 
potentially uprooting individual plants and causing loss of the soil 
seed bank. Shea (1993, p. 22) identified three Kentucky sites (EOs 9, 
20, and 21) at which livestock (goats or cows) grazing posed a threat 
to Short's bladderpod. None of these sites support the species today, 
likely due to multiple factors that degraded the habitat at those 
locations. In Tennessee, Shea (1993, p. 22) reported that EO numbers 15 
and 21 were threatened by grazing. However, more recent data from TDEC 
(TNHID 2012) indicate that Short's bladderpod has remained relatively 
stable at these sites and grazing is not listed among threats observed 
at these locations.
Commercial and Residential Construction
    While TDEC (2009, p. 3) lists commercial and residential 
construction among potential threats to Short's bladderpod, there is 
little documentation of these impacts. Tennessee EO 31, which is based 
on a single herbarium collection from 1979, was apparently lost due to 
construction activities at its location within the city of Clarksville 
(TNHID 2012). The only other reference we have found for this 
particular threat was an observation by TDEC (TNHID 2012) that an area 
in the vicinity of Tennessee EO 21 had been subdivided for residential 
construction on the bluffs overlooking Old Hickory Lake. Construction-
related threats to Short's bladderpod could include direct destruction 
of habitat and the plants found there or the indirect effects of 
habitat alteration from sediment runoff

[[Page 47122]]

and encroachment of invasive, nonnative plant species from areas 
disturbed during construction.
Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and 
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate 
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different 
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical 
period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also 
may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus 
refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures 
of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an 
extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due 
to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). 
Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects 
on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative and 
they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant 
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with 
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-
19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant 
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various 
aspects of climate change.
    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, are 
limited in distribution, or have become restricted to the extreme 
periphery of their range will be most susceptible to the impacts of 
climate change.
    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 
Short's bladderpod. However, data on recent trends and predicted 
changes for the Southeast and Midwest United States (Karl et al. 2009, 
pp. 111-122) provide some insight for evaluating the potential threat 
of climate change to the species. Most of the range of Short's 
bladderpod lies within the geographic area included by Karl et al. 
(2009, pp. 111-122) in their summary of regional climate impacts 
affecting the Southeast region; however, the Indiana occurrence of the 
species lies in the Midwest region, just west of its boundary with the 
Southeast region.
    Since 1970, the average annual temperature across the Southeast 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, p. 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 increased frequency, 
intensity, and duration of drought events (Karl et al. 2009, p. 112).
    Projected increases in winter and spring rainfall for the Midwest 
region, as well as predictions of more intense rainfall events 
throughout the year, are expected to lead to more frequent flooding. 
Despite these projected trends, the likelihood of drought is expected 
to increase in the Midwest due to warming-induced increases in 
evapotranspiration rates and longer intervals between precipitation 
events (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 120-121).
    Depending on timing and intensity of drought events, Short's 
bladderpod could be adversely affected by increased mortality rates, 
reduced reproductive output due to loss or reduced vigor of mature 
plants, and reduced rates of seed germination and seedling recruitment. 
The species' presumed ability to form a seed bank should provide some 
resilience to drought-induced population declines; however, multiple 
droughts in successive years could diminish this resilience and lead to 
the loss of occurrences. Conversely, increased drought frequency and 
severity could alter structure of vegetation communities in which 
Short's bladderpod occurs by slowing rates of forest canopy 
development, increasing tree mortality, and increasing light 
availability for the species, which could stimulate recruitment from 
dormant seed banks and increase vigor of plants located in areas that 
are presently well-shaded. The predicted increase in flood frequency in 
the Midwest could place the Indiana population of the species at risk, 
as evidenced by the loss of large numbers of seedlings during a 
prolonged flood at this site in 2011. While climate has changed in 
recent decades in regions where Short's bladderpod occurs and the rate 
of change likely will continue to increase into the future, we do not 
have data to determine how the habitats where Short's bladderpod occurs 
will be affected by these changes and how the species will respond to 
these changes.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Range
    There have been limited conservation efforts directed towards 
reducing threats affecting Short's bladderpod and its habitat. The 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources acquired the single Indiana 
occurrence. IDNR controls competing vegetation by mowing along the 
roadside where Short's bladderpod occurs and attempts to stimulate 
germination and seedling recruitment with light soil disturbance. The 
species has responded positively, at least in the short term, to this 
management (Homoya, pers. comm., December 2012). In Kentucky, a 
Landowner Incentive Program grant was used to manage vegetation 
structure or control invasive species at two occurrences in 2005. The 
effort to control bush honeysuckle at Kentucky EO 19 provided only a 
short-term benefit, if any, for Short's bladderpod, as bush honeysuckle 
is again well established at this site. During 2011, no Short's 
bladderpod plants could be found at this site, and the occurrence is 
presumed extirpated. The removal of cedar trees at Kentucky EO 23 
appears to have positively affected habitat conditions for Short's 
bladderpod, as there were more than 500 plants, mostly seedlings, 
observed at the site in 2011. The Kentucky State Nature Preserve 
Commission acquired lands to establish the Rockcress Hills State Nature 
Preserve, where Kentucky EO 22 is located and where the federally 
listed endangered Braun's rockcress (listed as Arabis perstellata, but 
now recognized as Boechera perstellata) also occurs. As discussed 
above, this occurrence is threatened by shading due to forest canopy 
development. These conservation efforts have benefited three

[[Page 47123]]

extant Short's bladderpod occurrences, but significant habitat threats 
remain across the species' range.
Summary of Factor A
    The threats to Short's bladderpod from habitat destruction and 
modification are occurring throughout the entire range of the species. 
These threats include transportation right-of-way construction and 
maintenance; flooding and water level fluctuation; overstory shading; 
and competition with nonnative plant species. The population level 
impacts from these activities are expected to continue into the future. 
Trash dumping, livestock grazing, and commercial and residential 
construction have been recognized as threats to habitat for this 
species, but there is little evidence that these are significant 
threats to extant occurrences.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    There has been limited collection of Short's bladderpod seed for 
conservation purposes. The Missouri Botanical Garden holds seed 
accessions from the Indiana occurrence, four Kentucky occurrences (EOs 
4, 18, 19, and 28), and two Tennessee occurrences (EOs 4 and 17). 
Kentucky EO 19 is no longer extant, for reasons discussed above, but 
Short's bladderpod is still found at all of the other occurrences from 
which these accessions were collected. Dr. Carol Baskin (pers. comm., 
December 2012) collected seeds from Indiana for research on seed 
ecology. We are not aware of commercial trade in Short's bladderpod at 
this time. Indiscriminate collecting for scientific or other purposes 
could be a threat to the species due to the low numbers of individuals 
at most occurrences, but we have no data to indicate that 
indiscriminate collecting of Short's bladderpod has occurred. On the 
contrary, collections for ex situ conservation holdings could be an 
important component of future recovery efforts for the species.
C. Disease or Predation
    We are not aware of any commercial or scientific data indicating 
that disease or predation threatens the continued existence of Short's 
bladderpod.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into 
account ``those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign 
nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to 
protect such species. . . .'' In relation to Factor D under the Act, we 
interpret this language to require the Service to consider relevant 
Federal, State, and tribal laws, plans, regulations, and other such 
mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe in threat 
analyses under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance 
conservation of the species. We give strongest weight to statutes and 
their implementing regulations and to management direction that stems 
from those laws and regulations. An example would be State governmental 
actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, or Federal 
action under statute.
    Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any 
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to 
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the 
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, 
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified 
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal 
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or 
remove threats to Short's bladderpod.
    Short's bladderpod is listed as endangered in Indiana, Kentucky, 
and Tennessee. In Indiana this listing does not provide legal 
protection for the species; although, listed species are given special 
consideration when planning government-funded projects. Additionally, 
the Indiana site is located on land owned by the IDNR where collection 
or damage to plants is prohibited.
    The Kentucky Rare Plants Recognition Act, Kentucky Revised Statutes 
(KRS), chapter 146, section 600-619, directs the KSNPC to identify 
plants native to Kentucky that are in danger of extirpation within 
Kentucky and report every 4 years to the Governor and General Assembly 
on the conditions and needs of these endangered or threatened plants. 
This list of endangered or threatened plants in Kentucky is found in 
the Kentucky Administrative Regulations, title 400, chapter 3:040. The 
statute (KRS 146:600-619) recognizes the need to develop and maintain 
information regarding distribution, population, habitat needs, limiting 
factors, other biological data, and requirements for the survival of 
plants native to Kentucky. This statute does not include any regulatory 
prohibitions of activities or direct protections for any species 
included in the list. It is expressly stated in KRS 146.615 that this 
list of endangered or threatened plants shall not obstruct or hinder 
any development or use of public or private land. Furthermore, the 
intent of this statute is not to ameliorate the threats identified for 
the species, but it does provide information on the species.
    The Tennessee Rare Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1985 
(T.C.A. 11-26-201) authorizes the Tennessee Department of Environment 
and Conservation (TDEC) to, among other things: conduct investigations 
on species of rare plants throughout the state of Tennessee; maintain a 
listing of species of plants determined to be endangered, threatened, 
or of special concern within the state; and regulate the sale or export 
of endangered species via a licensing system. This act 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, lessee, or other person entitled to 
possession and prescribes penalties for violations. The TDEC may use 
the list of threatened and special concern species when commenting on 
proposed public works projects in Tennessee, and the department shall 
encourage voluntary efforts to prevent the plants on this list from 
becoming endangered species. This authority shall not, however, be used 
to interfere with, delay, or impede any public works project.
    Thus, despite the fact that Short's bladderpod is listed as 
endangered by the states of Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee, these 
designations confer no guarantee of protection to the species or its 
habitat, whether on privately owned or state-owned lands, unless such 
protections are voluntarily extended to the species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
    The ability of populations to adapt to environmental change is 
dependent upon genetic variation, a property of populations that 
derives from its members possessing different forms (i.e., alleles) of 
the same gene (Primack 1998, p. 283). Small populations occurring in 
isolation on the landscape can lose genetic variation due to the 
potentially strong influence of genetic drift, i.e., the random change 
in allele frequency from generation to generation (Barrett and Kohn 
1991, p. 8). Smaller populations experience greater changes in allele 
frequency due to drift than do larger populations (Allendorf and 
Luikart 2007, pp. 121-122). Loss of genetic variation due to genetic 
drift heightens susceptibility of small populations to adverse genetic 
effects, including inbreeding depression and

[[Page 47124]]

loss of evolutionary flexibility (Primack 1998, p. 283). Deleterious 
effects of loss of genetic variation through drift have been termed 
drift load, which is expressed as a decline in mean population 
performance of offspring in small populations (Willi et al. 2005, p. 
2260).
    The likelihood that Short's bladderpod is self-incompatible 
presents another threat related to small population sizes. Genetic 
incompatibility prevents self-fertilization or reduces successful 
breeding among closely related individuals, which can decrease mean 
fitness in small populations because of increased probability of an 
encounter of two incompatible haplotypes (specific combination of 
alleles at adjacent locations (loci) on the chromosome that are 
inherited as a unit) (Willi et al. 2005, p. 2256), which would prevent 
seed production in self-incompatible plants. In small populations, less 
common S-haplotypes (self-incompatibility haplotypes) might be easily 
lost due to genetic drift, reducing the number of compatible mates 
within the population (Byers and Meagher 1992, p. 356).
    In self-incompatible plants of the Brassicaceae family, when pollen 
and stigma share S-haplotypes at the S-locus (self-incompatibility 
locus, i.e., the position on a chromosome occupied by the self-
incompatibility gene complex), pollen tube development is disrupted on 
the stigma of the female reproductive system (Takayama and Isogai 2005, 
p. 469). The stigma is the receptive structure of the female 
reproductive system in plants, which also includes the pistil and 
ovary, on which pollen grains germinate and begin development of the 
pollen tube. Pollen tube formation is necessary for fertilization of 
the ovary and subsequent seed production to occur.
    Despite the presence of such a mechanism functioning to reduce or 
eliminate reproductive output among individuals sharing S-haplotypes, 
in small populations mating is likely to occur among individuals that 
possess different S-haplotypes but are genetically similar at other 
loci due to loss of alleles from the population through genetic drift 
(Byers and Meagher 1992, p. 358). Mating between such closely related 
individuals is referred to as inbreeding. Inbreeding rates are higher 
in small populations because most or all individuals in the population 
are related, and inbred individuals generally have reduced fitness as 
compared to non-inbred individuals from the same population, a 
phenomenon referred to as inbreeding depression (Allendorf and Luikart 
2007, p. 306).
    Evidence in plants of inbreeding depression due to small population 
size is provided by Heschel and Paige (1995, p. 128), who found that 
plants from populations of Ipomopsis aggregata (scarlet gilia) with 100 
or fewer flowering individuals produced smaller seeds with lower rates 
of germination success compared to those from populations with more 
than 100 flowering individuals. Heschel and Paige (1995, p. 131) also 
found that seed sizes increased and germination success improved in 
response to transfer of pollen into each of the small populations, 
which they interpreted as evidence that the reduced fitness observed in 
small populations was attributable, in part, to inbreeding depression.
    Willi et al. (2005, pp. 2263) found evidence of the three processes 
described above (reduced cross-compatibility presumably due to lack of 
compatible mates carrying different S-haplotypes, reduced fitness due 
to inbreeding, and drift load due to loss of genetic variation) 
simultaneously affecting small populations of a plant, Ranunculus 
reptans (creeping buttercup). Populations with low allelic diversity, 
taken as an indication of long-term small population size, had higher 
inbreeding levels. Inbreeding depression in these populations was 
expressed as poor clonal performance and reduced seed production in 
offspring (F1 plants) produced by crosses between plants with high 
kinship coefficients. Drift load also was expressed as a reduction in 
mean seed production of F1 plants in long-term small populations (Willi 
et al. 2005, p. 2260).
    In evaluating threats to Short's bladderpod that could arise due to 
small population size, we first evaluated the limited data available 
concerning abundance at each of the occurrences across the species' 
range. This represents a conservative classification of small 
population size, as available data typically do not discriminate among 
life history stages, so the number of reproducing individuals is 
typically less than what is shown in the abundance data in Table 1 (see 
Distribution and Status for the Short's bladderpod, above). Less than 
100 individual plants have ever been observed at one time at 12 (46 
percent) of the extant occurrences in Kentucky (EOs 1, 11, and 28) and 
Tennessee (EOs 8, 12, 15, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30). The greatest 
number of plants ever observed at the small Kentucky occurrences ranged 
from 2 at EO 1 to 52 at EO 11 (KNHP 2012). At the small Tennessee 
occurrences, maximum recorded abundance ranged from 3 clusters of 
plants at EO 26 to approximately 50 plants each at EOs 8, 12, 22, 27, 
and 29 (TNHID 2012). These small populations are at risk of adverse 
effects from reduced genetic variation and associated drift load, 
increased risk of inbreeding depression, and reduced reproductive 
output due to low availability of genetically compatible mates. Many of 
these occurrences where population sizes are small are isolated from 
other occurrences, decreasing the likelihood that they could be 
naturally reestablished via seed dispersal, in the event that local 
extinction occurred.
Cumulative Effects From Factors A through E
    Where two or more threats affect Short's bladderpod occurrences, 
the effects of those threats could interact or be compounded, producing 
a cumulative adverse effect that rises above the incremental effect of 
either threat alone. The most obvious cases in which cumulative adverse 
effects would be significant are those in which small populations 
(Factor E) are affected by threats that result in destruction or 
modification of habitat (Factor A). Two occurrences in Kentucky and six 
in Tennessee where small population size was identified as a threat 
also face threats to their habitats, as discussed under Factor A above. 
The vulnerability of these occurrences to habitat modification or 
destruction is heightened by effects of small population size discussed 
above, reduced resilience to recover from acute demographic effects of 
habitat disturbances, and low potential for recolonization due to 
isolation from other occurrences.

Whorled Sunflower

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range
    Whorled sunflower appears to be a narrow habitat specialist, 
occurring in natural wet meadows or prairies and calcareous barrens. 
Such habitats likely were more extensive in the eastern United States 
before European settlement, subsequent fire suppression, and conversion 
of habitat to cropland or residential areas (Allison 1995, p. 7). Today 
these prairie areas are not very extensive, and they often are degraded 
or have been destroyed for a number of reasons. Most remaining prairie 
vegetation in the geographic area where whorled sunflower occurs exists 
as remnants along roadside and utility rights-of-way, where prairie-
like

[[Page 47125]]

conditions are artificially maintained (Allison 1995, p. 4). Where 
whorled sunflower habitat remains, it faces threats due to 
indiscriminate use of mechanical or chemical vegetation management for 
industrial forestry, right-of-way maintenance, or agricultural purposes 
that could adversely affect it. Because the species requires well-lit 
habitats for its growth and reproduction, shading and competition due 
to vegetation succession in the absence of natural or human-caused 
disturbance also threaten whorled sunflower habitat.
Industrial Forestry Practices
    Industrial forestry practices have altered much suitable whorled 
sunflower habitat in Georgia and Alabama, and currently threaten one 
known subpopulation in Alabama. While surveying potential habitat for 
additional populations, J. Allison (Botanist, Georgia Department of 
Natural Resources, pers. comm., March 1999) observed that much of this 
species' prairie habitat in Georgia had been converted to pine 
plantations. Nearly all of the Georgia subpopulations and one of the 
Alabama subpopulations of whorled sunflower are located on lands that 
currently are owned by The Campbell Group, a timberland investment 
advisory firm. The Georgia subpopulations on The Campbell Group's lands 
are protected from habitat destruction or degradation by their 
inclusion in the conservation easement area at the Coosa Valley 
Prairie, which was donated to The Nature Conservancy by the Temple-
Inland Corporation, the former owner of these lands.
    With the exception of the conservation easement area at the Coosa 
Valley Prairie, The Campbell Group typically subsoil plows planting 
sites to improve drainage and conditions for tree root development, and 
uses mechanical or chemical methods to control competing vegetation 
when preparing sites for planting pine seedlings (J. King, Area 
Manager, The Campbell Group, LLC, pers. comm., August 2012) on its 
lands in Floyd County, Georgia, and Cherokee County, Alabama. These 
practices could cause direct mortality of whorled sunflower plants at 
one of the Alabama subpopulations and could contribute to habitat 
degradation caused by shading and competition (please see ``Shading and 
Competition'' below) by improving conditions for growth of planted 
pines. During timber harvests, either to thin (i.e., reduce density of 
pine trees in order to improve growth conditions for remaining trees) 
or to clearcut the stand, whorled sunflower plants at this 
subpopulation could be subjected to indirect adverse effects from soil 
disturbance or to direct mortality due to movement of harvesting 
equipment.
Right-of-Way Maintenance
    Incompatible maintenance activities in transportation rights-of-way 
have adversely affected the whorled sunflower in Alabama and Tennessee, 
and could affect one subpopulation in Georgia. At one of the Alabama 
subpopulations, the whorled sunflower occurs in a narrow strip of 
vegetation between a roadside and adjacent pine forest, where it is 
vulnerable to mortality or reduced vigor and reproductive output due to 
indiscriminate use of herbicides or mowing for right-of-way 
maintenance. Poorly timed mowing of this right-of-way prevented 
flowering and seed production in some plants at this site in 2008; 
however, the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 
Alabama Department of Transportation, and Cherokee County Highway 
Department cooperated in placing signs at the site to mark the presence 
of whorled sunflower and to attempt to prevent this in the future (W. 
Barger, Botanist, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 
Resources, pers. comm., February 2009); periodic replacement might be 
needed due to vandalism or removal of the signs (Barger, pers. comm., 
March 2012). Regular coordination with parties responsible for roadside 
maintenance at this location will be necessary to avoid future adverse 
effects to the whorled sunflower from indiscriminate mowing or 
herbicide application.
    Plants extending onto a roadside within a powerline right-of-way at 
the Madison County, Tennessee, population were subjected to herbicide 
spraying in association with roadside and powerline maintenance in 
2004, causing significant mortality (A. Bishop, Botanist, TDEC, pers. 
comm., February 2008; D. Lincicome, Natural Heritage Program Manager, 
TDEC, pers. comm., September 2006). Similarly, plants extending into 
the railroad right-of-way at the McNairy County, Tennessee, population 
are vulnerable to adverse effects from indiscriminate herbicide 
application for railroad right-of-way maintenance. A small cluster of 
plants in one of the Georgia's subpopulations is located on the bank of 
a road adjacent to the Coosa Valley Prairie easement area and is not 
protected. These data indicate that effects of indiscriminate use of 
herbicides or mowing for vegetation management in transportation 
rights-of-way could adversely affect the whorled sunflower populations 
in Alabama and Tennessee, as well as a small subpopulation in Georgia.
Agricultural Practices and Land Conversion
    The whorled sunflower has not been rediscovered at the type 
locality in Tennessee despite intensive surveys of that area (Nordman 
1998, p. 1-2). However, this record is from an 1892 collection and 
locality information is vague, so it is not possible to determine why 
this population has been lost. In Tennessee, much of this species' 
suitable habitat presumably has been converted for agricultural use, as 
substantial proportions of the counties in the State where the species 
have been found have been in row crop production since 1850 (Table 5) 
(Waisanen and Bliss 2002; GIS data available at http://landcover.usgs.gov/cropland, accessed January 9, 2013). Because this 
species was not seen following the initial 1892 collection until it was 
rediscovered in 1994, and was not seen again in Tennessee until 1998, 
it is impossible to know the historical distribution and abundance of 
its habitat. However, the data in Table 5 indicate that land conversion 
to agricultural uses has a long and sustained history in the Tennessee 
counties where the whorled sunflower has been found and likely has 
contributed to loss of habitat and whorled sunflower populations.

 Table 5--Proportions of County Land Base Considered Improved Farmland for Tennessee Counties Where the Whorled
  Sunflower Has Been Found. Reported Here for Each County Are the Highest and Lowest Proportions on Record for
   Each County and the Years in Which They Occurred and Values for the Years 1850 and 1997, the First and Last
                                  Years Included in Waisanen and Bliss (2002).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           County                             High (year)   Low (year)      1850         1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chester.....................................................    37 (1940)    18 (1850)           18           23
Madison.....................................................    54 (1949)    23 (1870)           28           29

[[Page 47126]]

 
McNairy.....................................................    33 (1920)    14 (1850)           14           20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agricultural practices, including field preparation, herbicide use, 
and harvesting of crops, are threats to both of the known Tennessee 
populations, due to the species' presence in habitats adjacent to 
actively farmed crop fields in both locations. In July 2009, TDEC 
biologists observed that one clump consisting of two whorled sunflower 
stems had been destroyed by row crop cultivation in a previously fallow 
field at the McNairy County, Tennessee, population. Unpaved access 
roads around the perimeter of this field had also been widened, 
encroaching on whorled sunflower plants (7 clumps, 140 stems) in an 
adjacent railroad right-of-way (Bishop, pers. comm., March 2010). With 
the exception of the approximately 1-ha (2.5-ac) patch of old field 
habitat discussed above (see Habitat for the whorled sunflower, above), 
the Madison County, Tennessee, whorled sunflower population is 
distributed in narrow strips of vegetation along borders of row crop 
fields and is vulnerable to mechanized disturbance of these habitats or 
to effects from herbicide application. Based on this information we 
conclude that habitat at both whorled sunflower populations in 
Tennessee face significant threats associated with agricultural 
practices used in row crop production.
Shading and Competition
    Absent natural or human-caused disturbance, habitats where whorled 
sunflower occurs are threatened by succession of vegetation to a shrub-
dominated or forested condition. The largest concentration of plants at 
the Madison County, Tennessee, population is located in a successional 
old field approximately 1 ha (2.5 ac) in size, where vegetation 
succession threatens to degrade the largest patch of contiguous habitat 
where the majority of this population occurs. Woody species present at 
this site include Acer negundo (box elder), Liquidambar styraciflua 
(sweetgum), and Salix nigra (black willow) (Tennessee Division of 
Natural Areas 2006, p. 5), all of which can rapidly invade moist old 
field habitats if left unmanaged. No conservation agreements or 
management plans are in place to ensure that this site receives 
periodic disturbance to maintain open conditions needed for the growth 
and sexual reproduction of whorled sunflower.
    The Alabama subpopulation on The Campbell Group's lands is located 
in a site where the prior owner, Temple-Inland Corporation, harvested 
an immature hardwood forest in 1998. Initially this timber harvest was 
thought to have adversely affected the whorled sunflower population, 
but these plants and associated prairie species responded favorably 
within a few years following the harvest. However, the site was 
subsequently converted into a loblolly pine plantation, and the trees 
have attained sufficient size and density to threaten whorled sunflower 
plants due to increased shading and competition (Schotz 2011, p. 4). As 
of 2012, there were few whorled sunflower plants present at this site, 
and those present were in a suppressed, vegetative condition due to 
strong shading and competition from planted pines and vegetation 
growing in the understory. Encroachment by invasive, nonnative plants 
following the timber harvest and establishment of the loblolly pine 
stand also is a threat at this site (Schotz 2011, p. 12). The second 
Alabama subpopulation is relegated to a narrow strip of vegetation 
between a roadside and adjacent pine forest with a densely vegetated 
understory. The spatial extent of this subpopulation is limited by the 
whorled sunflower's inability to grow in the shaded habitat of the 
adjacent forest.
    Based on this information we conclude that habitat degradation due 
to shading and competition resulting from vegetation succession 
currently is a significant threat to two whorled sunflower populations. 
Both of the Alabama subpopulations and the largest contiguous patch of 
suitable occupied habitat for the species in Tennessee are at risk from 
this threat.
Climate Change
    We discuss the topic of climate change in greater detail above in 
the Factor A threats analysis for Short's bladderpod, which is also 
applicable to whorled sunflower. Since 1970, the average annual 
temperature across the Southeast 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, p. 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 increased 
frequency, intensity, and duration of drought events (Karl et al. 2009, 
p. 112).
    The predicted increase in drought frequency, intensity, and 
duration could adversely affect the moist prairie habitats inhabited by 
whorled sunflower, by reducing soil moisture and increasing sunflower 
mortality rates or reducing flowering and seed production rates. A 
positive effect of increased drought could result from increased 
mortality of woody vegetation and reduced rates of vegetation 
succession, which diminishes habitat abundance and quality for whorled 
sunflower. While climate has changed in recent decades in the region 
where whorled sunflower occurs and the rate of change likely will 
continue to increase into the future, we do not have data to determine 
how the habitats where the whorled sunflower occurs will be affected by 
these changes and how the species will respond to these changes.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Range
    Temple-Inland Corporation donated a conservation easement for the 
Coosa Valley Prairie property in Georgia to The Nature Conservancy, 
thereby

[[Page 47127]]

protecting most of the Georgia population of this species. This site 
drains into the headwaters of Mud Creek. In 2002, The Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources and The Nature Conservancy worked with 
staff of Temple-Inland to develop a 10-year management plan for 
conservation of rare species within this easement area. Site-specific 
management plans for several open wet prairies, known to provide 
habitat for this species within the easement, were developed. Temple-
Inland implemented a prescribed burn and selective timber harvest on 
243 ha (600 ac) of the easement in 2001, to improve habitat conditions 
for whorled sunflower and other species. Temple-Inland conducted 
additional burns within the easement area between 2002 and 2006. 
Mechanical thinning and control of invasive, exotic plants was also a 
component of their management of this site.
    This easement area, now owned by The Campbell Group, is 
cooperatively managed with The Nature Conservancy based on a jointly 
developed conservation management plan, which was revised in 2012, for 
the period extending through 2016. The management goals for the site 
are based on the conservation easement and include long-term 
perpetuation and restoration of the mosaic of prairies, woodlands, 
wetlands, creeks, and forest while allowing for sustainable timber 
harvesting. Protecting and enhancing native plant communities, 
especially those supporting rare species, is the primary management 
objective, and periodic timber harvesting is a secondary objective. 
Portions of the tract either have been or will be planted into Pinus 
palustris (longleaf pine) as part of the Longleaf Alliance partnership. 
Prescribed fire is the primary management tool used to perpetuate and 
restore the native plant communities and also serves silvicultural 
objectives.
    Despite the existence of a conservation plan and the cooperative 
partnership between The Nature Conservancy and The Campbell Group to 
implement the plan, management with prescribed fire is not a binding 
condition of the conservation easement. Thus, the potential remains 
that this management could be discontinued in the event that the 
property was sold to a less cooperative landowner.
Summary of Factor A
    The threats to whorled sunflower from habitat destruction and 
modification are occurring throughout the entire range of the species. 
These threats include mechanical or chemical vegetation management 
associated with industrial forestry practices, maintenance of 
transportation and utility rights-of-way, agricultural practices, and 
shading and competition. While a conservation easement and suitable 
habitat management alleviate threats from industrial forestry that 
otherwise would adversely affect the Georgia population, one of the 
Alabama whorled sunflower subpopulations currently is threatened by 
industrial forestry practices. The population-level impacts from these 
activities are expected to continue into the future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    The whorled sunflower currently is of limited availability in the 
horticultural trade, although no negative impacts are known to have 
occurred due to collection of wild material for commercial sale. 
Nonetheless, the conspicuous, attractive flowers of this species 
combined with easy access of some sites leaves the species vulnerable 
to collection or poaching. Poaching from the small populations of 
whorled sunflower that are known to exist could contribute to altered 
demographic or genetic structure of populations, potentially 
diminishing their viability; however, we have no information to suggest 
this currently is an active threat or has adversely affected 
populations in the past.
C. Disease or Predation
    We are not aware of any commercial or scientific data indicating 
that disease or predation threatens the continued existence of whorled 
sunflower.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    Whorled sunflower is State-listed as endangered in Georgia and 
Tennessee, but has no official State status in Alabama. The law that 
provides official protection to designated species of plants in Georgia 
is known as the Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973 (O.C.G.A. 12-6-
170). Under this law, no protected plant may be collected without 
written landowner permission. No protected plant may be transported 
within Georgia without a transport tag with a permit number affixed. 
Permits are also used to regulate a wide array of conservation 
activities, including plant rescues, sale of protected species, and 
propagation efforts for augmentation of natural populations and 
establishment of new ones. No protected plants may be collected from 
State-owned lands without the express permission of the Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources. The Georgia Environmental Policy Act 
(GEPA; O.C.G.A. 12-16-1), enacted in 1991, requires that impacts to 
protected species be addressed for all projects on State-owned lands, 
and for all projects undertaken by a municipality or county if funded 
half or more by State funds, or by a State grant of more than $250,000. 
The provisions of GEPA do not apply to actions of nongovernmental 
entities. On private lands, the landowner has ultimate authority over 
what protection efforts, if any, occur with regard to protected plants 
(Patrick et al. 1995, p. 1 of section titled ``Legal Overview'').
    The Tennessee Rare Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1985 
(T.C.A. 11-26-201) authorizes the Tennessee Department of Environment 
and Conservation (TDEC) to, among other things: conduct investigations 
on species of rare plants throughout the state of Tennessee; maintain a 
listing of species of plants determined to be endangered, threatened, 
or of special concern within the state; and regulate the sale or export 
of endangered species via a licensing system. This act 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, lessee, or other person entitled to 
possession and prescribes penalties for violations. The TDEC may use 
the list of threatened and special concern species when commenting on 
proposed public works projects in Tennessee, and the department shall 
encourage voluntary efforts to prevent the plants on this list from 
becoming endangered species. This authority shall not, however, be used 
to interfere with, delay, or impede any public works project.
    Thus, despite the fact that whorled sunflower is listed as 
endangered by the states of Georgia and Tennessee, these designations 
confer no guarantee of protection to the species or its habitat, 
whether on privately owned or state-owned lands, unless such 
protections are voluntarily extended to the species by owners or 
managers of lands where the species is present.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
    The whorled sunflower is vulnerable to localized extinction because 
of its extremely restricted distribution and small population sizes at 
most known locations, which reduces the resilience of these populations 
to recover from acute demographic effects of threats to its habitat 
discussed above under Factor A. Whorled sunflower is dependent

[[Page 47128]]

upon existence of prairie-like openings or remnant roadside prairie 
habitats for its survival. Alteration or elimination of disturbance 
processes that maintain these openings could result in the extinction 
of populations of this species. Further, the highly fragmented 
distribution of populations within Tennessee, combined with their 
disjunct location with respect to those in Georgia and Alabama, 
presumably precludes gene flow among them and leaves little chance of 
natural recolonization of these populations in the event of localized 
extinctions.
    Small population size could be affecting reproductive fitness of 
the whorled sunflower. The findings of Ellis and McCauley (2008, 
entire) suggest that the Madison County, Tennessee, population is 
reproductively less fit than the Alabama population. Ellis and McCauley 
(2008, p. 1840) offered two possible explanations for reduced 
reproductive fitness of the Tennessee population, including limited 
mate availability due to limited diversity of self-incompatibility 
alleles, or more extensive inbreeding. Both could be contributing to 
reduced seed production and viability rates.
    Ellis and McCauley (2008, pp. 1837-1838) could not assess the 
fitness of the Georgia population because seed heads collected for the 
study contained very few viable achenes, which produced poor 
germination rates. However, the lack of viable achenes in seed heads 
collected for this study suggests that poor reproductive fitness could 
be a threat in this population, as well.
Cumulative Effects From Factors A through E
    Where two or more threats affect whorled sunflower populations, the 
effects of those threats could interact or be compounded, producing a 
cumulative adverse effect that rises above the incremental effect of 
either threat alone. Cumulative adverse effects are likely significant 
for whorled sunflower because all of the populations are small and 
their reproductive fitness is likely diminished (Factor E), and the 
Alabama and Tennessee populations are affected by threats that result 
in destruction or modification of habitat (Factor A). The vulnerability 
of these occurrences to habitat modification or destruction is 
heightened by the effects of small population size discussed above, 
reduced resilience to recover from acute demographic effects of these 
disturbances, and low potential for recolonization due to isolation 
from other occurrences.
Fleshy-Fruit Gladecress
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
    This species is endemic to cedar glade areas in north-central 
Alabama that have been significantly altered from their original 
condition. More than a 50 percent loss in glade habitat has occurred 
since European settlement (Hilton 1997), with resulting glade habitats 
reduced to remnants fragmented by agriculture and development. Hilton 
(1997) conducted a thorough survey of cedar glade communities in 
northern Alabama using historical records, soil maps, topographic maps, 
geology, and aerial photography; 22 high priority glades were 
identified. However, field surveys found only five of these to be in 
good condition and restorable, and only two of these were considered 
high-quality sites (Hilton, pers. comm., 1999).
Agricultural Practices
    At four of the fleshy-fruit gladecress populations, plants occur in 
pasture areas, on roadside rights-of-way, and/or in planted fields 
surrounded by agriculture or residential developments (Hilton 1997, pp. 
13-27). Periodic disturbance, such as plowing in row crop farming, 
arrests succession and maintains populations in this type of habitat; 
however, plowing or herbicide application in the spring prior to seed 
set and dispersal could be detrimental to populations. Populations are 
enhanced by disturbance created from light grazing, but heavy grazing 
of pastures creates unfavorable conditions (i.e., soil compaction, 
nutrient enrichment) for fleshy-fruit gladecress. Plants have been 
severely trampled where grazing is allowed during the height of the 
plant's flowering or fruiting period. Grazing during the reproductive 
period also reduces vigor of the populations (Schotz, 2009, p. 2). 
Improving pastures with fertilizer treatments or planting of forage 
grasses could eventually result in loss of populations due to 
competition. Lyons (in litt. 1981 to R. Sutter) considered that her 
failure to relocate many of the historical fleshy-fruit gladecress 
sites from the 1960s was due to the change in agricultural practices 
from growing corn to using those sites for cattle pastures. McDaniel 
and Lyons (1987, p. 11) considered the trend toward converting 
agricultural sites from row crop cultivation to pasture as a primary 
threat to the species.
Transportation Right-of-Way Maintenance
    Five of the six fleshy-fruit gladecress occurrences extend onto 
roadsides or are near roads, where mowing and herbicide application 
prior to seed set pose threats to the species. Three historical sites 
near roads have not been relocated and a portion of one of the extant 
populations was destroyed by road widening and grading in the 1980s 
(McDaniel and Lyons 1987, p. 7-9). Additional road widening at this 
site in recent years has further reduced the size of this population 
(Schotz 2009, p. 14). The largest population of this species has a dirt 
road traversing through a portion of the site, which has made the site 
vulnerable to off-road vehicles and dumping (Hilton 1997, p. 31). Other 
sites have also been negatively affected by trash dumping and off-road 
vehicles, including the site on U.S. Forest Service land. The U.S. 
Forest Service has posted the area as closed and recently gated the 
area to block all-terrain vehicle access to the site (T. Counts, U.S. 
Forest Service, in litt. 2008), which appears to have been effective at 
reducing damage to the glade (A. Cochran, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 
2005, Schotz in litt. 2007). The U.S. Forest Service continues to 
monitor the glade site for impacts from recreational vehicles and from 
other illegal vehicle activity (A. Cochran, pers. comm., 2011).
Shading and Competition
    Winter annuals, such as fleshy-fruit gladecress, are excluded from 
many habitats because they are poor competitors (Baskin and Baskin 
1985, p. 387). As with all annuals, this species' long-term survival at 
a locality is dependent upon its ability to reproduce and reseed there 
every year. Thus, populations decline and become at risk of local 
extinction if conditions remain unsuitable for reproduction for 
successive years. The most vigorous populations of the fleshy-fruit 
gladecress are located in areas which receive full, or near full, 
sunlight at the canopy level and have limited herbaceous competition 
(Hilton 1997, p. 5). Rollins (1963, p. 17) documented the loss of 
fleshy-fruit gladecress individuals caused by invading grasses in an 
unweeded portion of an experimental plot, while fleshy-fruit gladecress 
individuals in the hand-weeded part of the plot thrived. Hilton (1997, 
p. 12) was unable to relocate five populations in abandoned fields and 
pastures, which McDaniel and Lyons (1987, p. 7-9) had noted as 
appearing suppressed due to competition from invading weedy species.

[[Page 47129]]

    Shading and competition are potential threats at the two largest 
populations of fleshy-fruit gladecress (Hilton 1997, p. 68). One site, 
reported to be widely open in 1968, is now partially shaded due to 
closing of the canopy (Hilton 1997, p.18). Nonnative plants, including 
Ligustrum vulgare (common privet) and Lonicera maackii (bush 
honeysuckle), are a significant threat in many glades due to the ever 
present disturbances that allow for their colonization (Hilton 1997, p. 
68). Nonnative plant species pose a threat to one population of the 
fleshy-fruit gladecress, where they have established near an unimproved 
road traversing the site (Hilton 1997, p.18).
    Under natural conditions, cedar glades are edaphically (related to 
or caused by particular soil conditions) maintained through processes 
of drought and erosion interacting with other processes that disrupt 
encroachment of competing vegetation. Soils that develop on glades are 
easily eroded, moving downslope or into fractures in the substrate. The 
shallow soil, exposed rock, and frequently hot, dry summers create 
xeric conditions that regulate competition and shading from encroaching 
vegetation (Hilton 1997, p. 5; McDaniel and Lyons 1987, p. 6; Baskin et 
al. 1986, p. 138; Rollins 1963, p. 5). Historically, periodic fires 
also likely played a role in maintaining these communities (Shotz 2009, 
p. 1). Extant occurrences of fleshy-fruit gladecress are primarily 
located in areas modified for human use. These habitat modifications 
have either eliminated or reduced the frequency of natural disturbance 
processes, such as fire, that would otherwise regulate encroachment of 
competing vegetation.
Residential and Industrial Development
    Hilton (pers. comm., 1999) considered residential and industrial 
development that had taken place in the decade prior to her study to be 
the primary threat to cedar glade communities and the primary reason 
for the loss of cedar glade habitat. One of the six fleshy-fruit 
gladecress populations is located in the front yard of a private 
residence. However, at this time, we know of no projects that would 
lead to the destruction of habitat where this species is currently 
located.
Climate Change
    We discuss the topic of climate change in greater detail above in 
the Factor A threats analysis for Short's bladderpod, which is also 
applicable to the fleshy-fruit gladecress. Since, 1970, the average 
annual temperature across the Southeast has increased by about 2 
[deg]F, with the greatest increases occurring during the 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. p. 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 
increased frequency, intensity, and duration of drought events (Karl et 
al. 2009, p. 112).
    A warmer climate with more frequent droughts, but also extreme 
precipitation events, may adversely affect fleshy-fruit gladecress by 
altering the glade habitat the species requires. Ephemeral seeps and 
streams on glades provide microhabitats important to the distribution 
of the species (Hilton 1997, p. 5). Climate change may also improve 
habitat conditions for invasive plant species and other plants (USFWS 
2010, p. 5). A positive effect of increased drought could result from 
increased mortality of woody vegetation and reduced rates of vegetation 
succession.
    While climate has changed in recent decades in the region where 
fleshy-fruit gladecress occurs and the rate of change likely will 
continue to increase for the foreseeable future, we are unable to 
determine how the habitats where fleshy-fruit gladecress occurs will be 
affected by these changes and how the species will respond to these 
changes.
Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Range
    The occurrence and its habitat on William B. Bankhead National 
Forest (WBNF) is protected due to its location in a Native American 
cultural site and the fact that cedar glade communities are considered 
``rare communities'' on the WBNF and protected from detrimental effects 
from agency actions (A. Cochran, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 2005). A 
thorough survey of limestone and sandstone glades on the WBNF was 
completed by Schotz in 2006. Nine glades presently are known to occur 
on WBNF, with sandstone glades constituting the largest percentage of 
glade surface area. The fleshy-fruit gladecress inhabits Indian Tomb 
Hollow Glade, the one limestone glade present on WBNF, with a surface 
area of approximately 2.7 ha (1.1 ac). WBNF conducted treatment of the 
nonnative invasive species Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) on the 
Indian Tomb Hollow Glade in the fall of 2009 and summer of 2011. The 
U.S. Forest Service has posted the area of the gladecress population as 
closed to access and monitors impacts to the glade from off-road 
vehicles. Seeds from the Indian Tomb Hollow Glade were collected in May 
2010, and sent to the USDA National Center for Genetic Resources 
Preservation for long-term storage.
    The Service funded a survey of cedar glade habitats in the Moulton 
Valley physiographic region of northwestern Alabama, the major area for 
this habitat type, in the late 1990s. A survey and status update for 
all fleshy-fruit gladecress populations was part of that project. The 
Service recently funded surveys to update information on all 
populations of this species. All sites were visited in 2006 and 2007, 
and surveys continued into 2009 (Schotz 2009). This information will be 
used to develop conservation measures needed to protect and enhance 
populations.
Summary of Factor A
    The threats to fleshy-fruit gladecress from habitat destruction and 
modification are occurring throughout the entire range of the species. 
These threats include agricultural conversion or incompatible 
practices, maintenance of transportation rights-of-way, residential and 
industrial development, and shading and competition. Conservation 
efforts of the U.S. Forest Service have removed threats associated with 
off-road vehicle use and encroachment of invasive species at one site; 
however, maintenance of transportation right-of-ways and use of off-
road vehicles could adversely affect the remaining five extant 
populations. The population-level impacts from these activities are 
expected to continue into the future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    There is no information to suggest that fleshy-fruit gladecress is 
collected for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes, and we 
have no reason to believe that this factor will become a threat to the 
species in the future.

[[Page 47130]]

Factor C. Disease or Predation
    One occurrence was lost due to infection by mustard rust in the 
early 1980s (Lyons and Antonovics 1991, p. 274; McDaniel and Lyons 
1987, p. 11). We have no data to indicate whether this disease poses a 
significant long-term threat to the species generally. There is no 
information regarding predation of the species by wildlife. Grazing is 
ongoing across the range of the gladecress and occurs on portions of 
all extant population sites; however, there is no information to 
document that cattle eat gladecress. No studies have been conducted to 
investigate the effect of grazing or herbivory specifically on fleshy-
fruit gladecress.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    The greatest threats to the gladecress include loss of habitat and 
the plants themselves due to actions that remove the substrate under 
the populations or that cover them up. These types of actions have been 
associated with conversion of native glades or pastures with glades and 
outcrops to other land uses and potentially herbicide applications for 
the purpose of controlling invasive plants. State and Federal 
regulations that might help conserve rare species on State highway 
rights-of-way, including avoidance or minimization of habitat 
destruction, as well as regulations that would protect plants from 
herbicide applications, protect only already listed species, and 
therefore do not apply to gladecress. Likewise, no existing regulations 
protect the species on privately owned land, where most of the remnant 
gladecress populations are found.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence
    The fleshy-fruit gladecress is vulnerable to localized extinction 
because of the small number of occurrences and the small population 
sizes within the species' limited range. Small population sizes 
decrease the resilience of individual fleshy-fruit gladecress 
occurrences to recover from effects of other threats affecting the 
species' habitat. There are only six remaining flesh-fruit gladecress 
occurrences, and only one of these is protected. The loss of any 
occurrences would significantly impact the species' viability by 
reducing its redundancy on the landscape, which would increase its 
vulnerability to stochastic environmental stressors and reduce the 
species' resilience to recover from effects of threats discussed in the 
above sections.
    Three of the six populations of fleshy-fruit gladecress are small 
in size as a result of effects of habitat loss discussed in the above 
sections. The loss of populations and reductions in population sizes 
have resulted in spatial isolation between these remnant populations. 
These isolated populations are vulnerable to extinction by reductions 
in genetic variation among the populations (Klank et al. 2012, pp. 1-2; 
Shotz, pers. comm., 2013). Based on this information we conclude that 
the small number of populations and the small size of populations 
within the species' limited range are significant threats to fleshy-
fruit gladecress.
Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E
    Where two or more threats affect fleshy-fruit gladecress 
occurrences, the effects of those threats could interact or be 
compounded, producing a cumulative adverse effect that rises above the 
incremental effect of either threat alone. Cumulative adverse effects 
could be significant for fleshy-fruit gladecress because three of the 
six extant populations are small (Factor E) and all but one of the 
extant occurrences are affected by threats that result in the 
destruction or modification of habitat. The vulnerability of these 
occurrences to habitat modification or destruction is heightened by 
effects of small population size discussed above, reduced resilience to 
recover from acute demographic effects of these disturbances, and low 
potential for recolonization due to isolation from other occurrences.

Proposed Determinations

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to Short's 
bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress. Below we 
state which of the five factors are determined to be threats to these 
species and summarize the severity, timing, and significance of those 
threats.

Short's Bladderpod

    The most significant threats to this species are described under 
Listing Factors A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range) and E (other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence). Based on the Factor A 
analysis, we conclude that the loss and degradation of habitat 
represents the greatest threat to Short's bladderpod. Road construction 
has caused the loss of habitat and all Short's bladderpod plants at 
five occurrences in the past, and roadside maintenance or road widening 
could adversely affect nearly 40 percent of the extant occurrences of 
the species due to their position in roadside habitats. Future 
development of a commuter rail project to improve intercity commute 
options between the cities of Nashville and Clarksville, Tennessee, 
could affect 27 percent of known extant occurrences, including some 
locations where the species is found in greatest abundance.
    Flooding and water level fluctuations threaten 19 percent of extant 
Short's bladderpod occurrences, most notably the single Indiana 
occurrence, where the species has been present in large numbers but 
recently experienced a reduction in numbers due to prolonged flooding. 
Overstory shading due to natural forest succession, combined with 
shading and competition due to invasive, nonnative shrubs and 
herbaceous species presents the most widespread, imminent threat to 
Short's bladderpod, and has been implicated in the loss of several 
historic occurrences. These threats are expected to continue into the 
foreseeable future.
    The Factor E analysis demonstrated that Short's bladderpod is 
vulnerable to adverse effects of small population size, including 
potential for reduced genetic variation, low numbers of compatible 
mates, increased likelihood of inbreeding depression, and reduced 
resilience to recover from acute demographic effects of other threats 
to the species and is habitat. Fewer than 100 plants have ever been 
observed at one time at 12 (46 percent) of the 26 extant occurrences, 
and many of these occurrences are isolated from other occurrences. 
Existing threats may be exacerbated by the effects of ongoing and 
future climate change, especially projected increases in temperature 
and increased frequency and severity of droughts in the Southeast and 
projected increases in flooding in the Midwest.
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we conclude that adverse effects associated with small and 
often isolated populations, as described in the Factor E analysis, both 
alone and in conjunction with the widespread threats described under 
Factor A, constitute significant threats to Short's bladderpod. As 
discussed under Factor D, no regulatory mechanisms exist that would 
prevent or restrict activities described under Factor A that constitute 
significant threats to the species. Therefore, on the basis of best 
available scientific and commercial information we have determined that 
Short's bladderpod is in danger of extinction

[[Page 47131]]

throughout all or a significant portion of its range and that a 
proposed determination as an endangered species is appropriate.

Whorled Sunflower

    The most significant threats to this species are described under 
Listing Factors A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range) and E (other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence). Based on the Factor A 
analysis, we conclude that the loss and degradation of habitat 
represents the greatest threat to whorled sunflower. Past and ongoing 
risk of adverse effects from mechanical or chemical vegetation 
management for industrial forestry, right-of-way maintenance, or 
agriculture is a threat to three of the four extant populations of this 
species. Modification of the remnant prairie habitats that the species 
occupies due to shading and competition resulting from vegetation 
succession also threatens these three populations, limiting growth and 
reproductive output of whorled sunflower. These threats are expected to 
continue in the foreseeable future. A conservation easement and 
suitable habitat management currently alleviates these threats that 
otherwise would adversely affect the Georgia population.
    The Factor E analysis demonstrated that whorled sunflower is 
vulnerable to localized extinction because of its extremely restricted 
distribution and small population sizes at most known locations. Small 
population size could be affecting reproductive fitness of whorled 
sunflower by limiting availability of compatible mates or by causing 
higher rates of inbreeding among closely related individuals. Both of 
these could be contributing to reduced seed production and viability 
rates, which limit the species' ability to recovery from acute 
demographic effects of habitat loss or modification. The species' 
dependence on remnant prairie habitats, which are isolated on the 
landscape, limits the potential for recolonization in the event that 
localized extinction events occur.
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we conclude that adverse effects associated with extremely 
restricted distribution and small and isolated populations, as 
described in the Factor E analysis, both alone and in conjunction with 
the threats described under Factor A, constitute significant threats to 
whorled sunflower. As discussed under Factor D, no regulatory 
mechanisms exist that would prevent or restrict activities described 
under Factor A that constitute significant threats to the species. 
Therefore, on the basis of best available scientific and commercial 
information we have determined that whorled sunflower is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and 
that a proposed determination as an endangered species is appropriate.

Fleshy-fruit Gladecress

    The most significant threats to this species are described under 
Listing Factors A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range) and E (other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence). Based on the Factor A 
analysis, we conclude that the loss and degradation of habitat 
represents the greatest threat to fleshy-fruit gladecress. The threats 
to fleshy-fruit gladecress from habitat destruction and modification 
are occurring throughout the entire range of the species. These threats 
include agricultural conversion for use as pasture or incompatible 
practices, maintenance of transportation rights-of-way (including 
mowing and herbicide treatment prior to seed set along roadsides), the 
impacts of off-road vehicles, dumping, residential and industrial 
development, and shading and competition. Conservation efforts of the 
U.S. Forest Service have removed threats associated with off-road 
vehicle use and encroachment of invasive species at one site; however, 
maintenance of transportation right-of-ways and use of off-road 
vehicles could adversely affect the remaining five extant populations.
    Shading due to natural forest succession and competition from 
nonnative invasive plants presents a significant threat to fleshy-fruit 
gladecress, and has been implicated in the loss of five historic 
occurrences. One site, reported to be widely open in 1968, is now 
partially shaded due to closing of the canopy and the presence of 
nonnative plants, including Ligustrum vulgare (common privet) and 
Lonicera maackii (bush honeysuckle), and these are significant threats 
in many glades due to the ever present disturbances that allow for 
nonnative plant colonization. These threats are expected to continue 
into the foreseeable future.
    The Factor E analysis demonstrated that fleshy-fruit gladecress is 
vulnerable to localized extinction because of the small number of 
occurrences and the small population sizes within its limited range. 
Small population sizes decrease the resilience of individual fleshy-
fruit gladecress occurrences to recover from effects of other threats 
affecting its habitat and reduce genetic variation among populations. 
There are only six remaining flesh-fruit gladecress occurrences, and 
only one of these is protected. The loss of any occurrences would 
significantly impact the species' viability by reducing its redundancy 
on the landscape, which would increase its vulnerability to stochastic 
environmental stressors and reduce the species' resilience to recover 
from effects of threats discussed in the above sections.
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we conclude that adverse effects associated with limited 
distribution and small population size, as described in the Factor E 
analysis, both alone and in conjunction with the threats described 
under Factor A, constitute significant threats to fleshy-fruit 
gladecress. As discussed under Factor D, no regulatory mechanisms exist 
that would prevent or restrict activities described under Factor A that 
constitute significant threats to the species. Therefore, on the basis 
of best available scientific and commercial information we have 
determined that fleshy-fruit gladecress is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range and that a 
proposed determination as an endangered species is appropriate.

Significant Portion of the Range

    The Act defines an endangered species as ``any species which is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' A major part of the analysis of ``significant portion of the 
range'' requires considering whether the threats to the species are 
geographically concentrated in any way. If the threats are essentially 
uniform throughout the species' range, then no portion is likely to 
warrant further consideration. Based on the threats to Short's 
bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress throughout 
their entire known ranges, we find that these species currently are in 
danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges, based on the 
severity and scope of the threats described above. As discussed above, 
these species are proposed for listing as endangered species, rather 
than threatened species, because the threats are occurring now or will 
in the near term, and their potential impacts to the species would be 
severe given the limited known distribution of the species, the small 
population sizes at many of the remaining sites, and the small area 
occupied by many of these populations, putting these species at risk of 
extinction at the present time. As these threats extend throughout 
their

[[Page 47132]]

entire ranges, it is unnecessary to determine if they are in danger of 
extinction throughout a significant portion of their ranges. Therefore, 
on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data, we 
propose listing Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit 
gladecress as endangered species throughout their ranges in accordance 
with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private 
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five 
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be 
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. 
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate 
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of 
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernment organizations, and 
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When 
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final 
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from the Service's Tennessee Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Indiana, Kentucky, and 
Tennessee would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management 
actions that promote the protection or recovery of Short's bladderpod. 
The States of Georgia and Tennessee would eligible for Federal funds to 
implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of 
whorled sunflower. Information on our grant programs that are available 
to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit 
gladecress are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, 
please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery 
efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new 
information on this species whenever it becomes available and any 
information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the 
Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include federally funded or permitted actions occurring 
within habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, or fleshy-
fruit gladecress (e.g., management and any other landscape altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers or U.S. Forest Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; construction and management of gas pipeline and power line 
rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; construction 
and maintenance of roads or highways funded or carried out by the 
Federal Highway Administration; and Federal Emergency Management 
Agency-funded actions). Also subject to consultation would be provision 
of Federal funds to State and private entities through Federal programs 
such as the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, State 
Wildlife Grant Program, and Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration 
Program.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants. 
All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50 CFR 
17.61, apply. These prohibitions, in part, 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

[[Page 47133]]

commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas 
under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as 
endangered, the Act prohibits the malicious damage or destruction on 
areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, 
or damaging or destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any 
State law or regulation, including State criminal trespass law. Certain 
exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies. The States of Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, and 
Tennessee have regulations authorizing the promulgation of lists of 
endangered plants; however, with the exception of Georgia, these 
regulations create no obligations on the part of landowners, public or 
private, to protect State-listed plants. The Georgia Environmental 
Policy Act requires that impacts to protected species be addressed for 
all projects on State-owned lands, and for all projects undertaken by a 
municipality or county if funded half or more by State funds, or by a 
State grant of more than $250,000. The Act will, therefore, offer 
additional protection to these species.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened plant species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.62 for endangered plants, and at 17.72 for threatened plants. With 
regard to endangered plants, a permit must be issued for the following 
purposes: for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing. The following activities could 
potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is 
not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of Short's bladderpod, whorled 
sunflower, or fleshy-fruit gladecress, including import or export 
across State lines and international boundaries, except for properly 
documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years old, as 
defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
    (2) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of Short's 
bladderpod or fleshy-fruit gladecress plants from populations located 
on Federal land (lands owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or on 
which they hold easements, or U.S. Forest Service lands); and
    (3) Unauthorized removal, damage or destruction of Short's 
bladderpod, whorled sunflower, or fleshy-fruit gladecress plants on 
private land in violation of any State regulation, including criminal 
trespass.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Service's 
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT). Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed 
species and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be 
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 105 West Park Drive, 
Suite D, Athens, GA 30606; telephone 706-613-9493; facsimile 706-613-
6059.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our listing determination for these species is based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited 
these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date 
of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests 
must be sent to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if 
any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those 
hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing.
    Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate 
in a public hearing should contact the Tennessee Ecological Services 
Field Office at (931) 528-6481, as soon as possible. To allow 
sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week 
before the hearing date. Information regarding this proposed rule is 
available in alternative formats upon request.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this rule easier to understand including answers to questions such as 
the following:
    (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
interferes with its clarity?
    (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
    (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into 
more (but shorter) sections?
    (5) Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of the preamble helpful in understanding the emergency rule? 
What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
rule easier to understand to Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department 
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. 
You also may email the comments to this address: [email protected].

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2013-0087 or upon request from the Field Supervisor, Tennessee 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section).

[[Page 47134]]

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT) and the Alabama Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to 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; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.12 paragraph (h), add entries for Helianthus 
verticillatus, Leavenworthia crassa, and Physaria globosa, in 
alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family            Status      When listed    Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                               habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Helianthus verticillatus.........  whorled sunflower...  U.S.A. (AL, GA, TN)  Asteraceae.........  E               ...........           NA           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Leavenworthia crassa.............  fleshy-fruit          U.S.A. (AL)........  Brassicaceae.......  E               ...........           NA           NA
                                    gladecress.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Physaria globosa.................  Short's bladderpod..  U.S.A. (IN, KY, TN)  Brassicaceae.......  E               ...........           NA           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: July 18, 2013.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-18213 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P