[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62826-62833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21954]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0129; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BA93


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for Platanthera integrilabia (white fringeless 
orchid), a plant species from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 
South Carolina, and Tennessee. This rule adds this species to the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

DATES: This rule is effective October 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/cookeville. Comments and 
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in 
preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field 
Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone: 931-528-6481; 
facsimile: 931-528-7075.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES, above). Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the white fringeless 
orchid (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) for a detailed description of 
previous Federal actions concerning this species.

Background

    Below, we update and summarize information from the proposed 
listing rule for the white fringeless orchid (80 FR 55304; September 
15, 2015) on the historical and current distribution of white 
fringeless orchid. Please refer to the proposed listing rule for a 
summary of other species information, including habitat, biology, and 
genetics.

Distribution

    In this final rule, we are updating information on the species' 
distribution from the September 15, 2015, proposed rule to include two 
minor changes, which were brought to our attention following 
publication of the proposed listing rule. First, we are changing the 
2014 status of the Forsyth County, Georgia, population from extant to 
uncertain (Table 1), because flowering plants have not been documented 
at this site since 1990 (Richards 2015, pers. comm.). In addition, we 
have added Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) to the list of 
local, State, or Federal government entities that own or manage lands 
where white fringeless orchid is present (Table 2). A revised summary 
of the species' distribution follows.

  Table 1--County-Level Distribution of Extant and Uncertain Status White Fringeless Orchid Occurrences, Circa
 1991 (Shea 1992) and 2014 (ANHP 2014, GDNR 2014, KSNPC 2014, MDWFP 2014, NCDENR 2014, SCDNR 2012, Schotz 2015,
                                                 and TDEC 2014)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               1991                            2014
             State                   County      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Extant         Uncertain        Extant         Uncertain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................  Calhoun.........  ..............  ..............               2  ..............
                                Clay............  ..............               1               1  ..............
                                Cleburne........  ..............  ..............               1  ..............
                                DeKalb..........  ..............  ..............               1  ..............
                                Jackson.........  ..............  ..............  ..............               1
                                Marion..........               1  ..............               1               2
                                Tuscaloosa......               1  ..............               1  ..............
                                Winston.........               1  ..............               1  ..............
Georgia.......................  Bartow..........  ..............  ..............               1  ..............
                                Carroll.........               2  ..............               2  ..............
                                Chattooga.......  ..............  ..............               1  ..............
                                Cobb............               1  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                Coweta..........               1  ..............               1  ..............
                                Forsyth.........  ..............               1  ..............               1
                                Pickens.........  ..............  ..............               1  ..............
                                Rabun...........               1  ..............               1  ..............
                                Stephens........               1  ..............               1  ..............
Kentucky......................  Laurel..........  ..............  ..............               2               2
                                McCreary........               4  ..............               2               1
                                Pulaski.........               1               1               2  ..............
                                Whitley.........  ..............  ..............               1  ..............
Mississippi...................  Alcorn..........  ..............  ..............  ..............               1
                                Itawamba........  ..............  ..............               2               1
                                Tishomingo......  ..............  ..............               1               1
South Carolina................  Greenville......               1  ..............  ..............               1
Tennessee.....................  Bledsoe.........  ..............               2               2               1
                                Cumberland......  ..............  ..............               1  ..............
                                Fentress........  ..............  ..............               2  ..............
                                Franklin........               3               2               5               5

[[Page 62827]]

 
                                Grundy..........               5               5               4               4
                                Marion..........               2  ..............               8  ..............
                                McMinn..........               1  ..............               1  ..............
                                Polk............  ..............  ..............               1  ..............
                                Scott...........  ..............  ..............               1  ..............
                                Sequatchie......               2               1               1               1
                                Van Buren.......               2  ..............               5               1
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ................              30              13              57              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table 2--Status and Number of White Fringeless Orchid Occurrences on Publicly Owned or Managed Lands
 [Note: One site is on privately owned lands that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) leases for
                                       use as a wildlife management area]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Ownership                         Extant         Uncertain      Extirpated      Historical
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Park Service...........................               3  ..............  ..............  ..............
U.S. Forest Service.............................               9               3               3  ..............
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service..................               2  ..............  ..............  ..............
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural    ..............               1  ..............  ..............
 Resources......................................
Georgia Department of Natural Resources.........               2  ..............  ..............  ..............
Georgia Department of Transportation............               1  ..............  ..............  ..............
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission......               1  ..............  ..............               1
Mississippi Department of Fish, Wildlife, and                  1  ..............  ..............  ..............
 Parks..........................................
North Carolina Plant Conservation Program.......  ..............  ..............               1  ..............
South Carolina State Parks......................  ..............               1  ..............  ..............
Tennessee Department of Transportation..........               1  ..............  ..............  ..............
Tennessee Division of Forestry..................               7  ..............  ..............  ..............
Tennessee State Parks...........................               5               1  ..............               1
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.............               1  ..............               1  ..............
Forsyth County, Georgia.........................  ..............               1  ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................              33               7               5               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All other information from the ``Distribution'' discussion in the 
proposed rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) remains unchanged.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on September 15, 2015 (80 FR 55304), 
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by November 16, 2015. We also contacted appropriate Federal 
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. On 
April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22041), we reopened the comment period for an 
additional 60 days, ending June 13, 2016. Newspaper notices inviting 
general public comment were published in the Asheville Citizen Times, 
Birmingham News, Chattanooga Times Free Press, Greenville News, 
Huntsville News, Knoxville News, Lexington Herald-Leader, and Northeast 
Mississippi Daily Journal. We did not receive any requests for a public 
hearing.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
white fringeless orchid and its habitat, biological needs, and threats 
or general conservation biology of orchids. We received responses from 
two of the peer reviewers. We reviewed all comments we received from 
the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding 
the listing of white fringeless orchid. The peer reviewers generally 
concurred with our evaluation and the conclusion we reached regarding 
the proposal to list the white fringeless orchid as a threatened 
species. One peer reviewer commented on the information on the species' 
habitat, biology, and threats, and provided minor updates regarding the 
status and distribution of white fringeless orchid in the State of 
Georgia. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary 
and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
    (1) Comment: One reviewer commented on subtle differences in 
descriptions of white fringeless orchid habitat that have been recorded 
over time, suggesting that descriptions from the 1970s (Luer 1975, p. 
186; Shea 1992, p. 19) or later might represent altered conditions, as 
compared to the earliest published habitat description (Correll 1941, 
pp. 156-157). This reviewer noted that Correll (1941, pp. 156-157) used 
the term ``grassy,'' citing an herbarium specimen label, in describing 
the habitat, possibly implying the presence of more open conditions in 
which a grassy herbaceous community would have been present. This 
reviewer speculated that the shaded, forested conditions, discussed in 
more contemporary descriptions of white fringeless orchid habitat, 
might have

[[Page 62828]]

resulted from land use and regulatory changes (i.e., regulation of 
impacts to wetlands) that have favored the development of more densely 
stocked, heavily shaded contemporary forest conditions in habitats 
where the white fringeless orchid occurs. This reviewer opined that 
current habitat conditions where the white fringeless orchid occurs do 
not, in many cases, represent the optimal range of habitat variation 
for the species. This reviewer also cited short-term positive responses 
of white fringeless orchid populations to timber removal in adjacent 
uplands, a phenomenon that we discussed in the proposed listing rule, 
as evidence of the positive influences of increased light and water 
availability, but which diminish with regrowth of even-aged hardwood 
stands in the absence of ecological disturbance, such as fire. One 
commenter also suggested that fire could be a beneficial management 
tool in conservation efforts for the white fringeless orchid.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer's observations about 
the potential beneficial effects of ecological disturbance, such as 
fire, in creating environmental conditions that stimulate population 
growth and increased flower production in the white fringeless orchid. 
The proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) discusses 
short-term positive responses to timber harvesting that have been 
observed in some white fringeless orchid populations and notes that 
Schotz (2015, p. 4) suggested that fire could play a role in regulating 
woody vegetation growth in uplands surrounding white fringeless orchid 
habitats. The proposed rule also reports on Hoy's (2012, p. 26) 
suggestion that high stem densities, which resulted from succession 
following canopy removal, shortened the hydroperiod of wetlands at a 
white fringeless orchid site in Kentucky. Evaluating the potential role 
of fire or other ecological disturbance in managing habitat for the 
white fringeless orchid will be considered during preparation of a 
recovery plan (see discussion about recovery plans under the heading 
Available Conservation Measures, below) for the species after it is 
listed.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the use of herbicides 
on industrial and small-scale timber operations appears to be 
increasing significantly in the State of Georgia and that we should 
include it as a threat of significant concern not only to the white 
fringeless orchid but also to the herbaceous plant community of which 
it is part, as well as pollinators. The reviewer did not provide 
specific data in support of this comment.
    Our Response: We agree that increased use of herbicides in timber 
operations in or near habitats where the white fringeless orchid occurs 
could be detrimental to the species, as well as other herbaceous plants 
and pollinators, but we are not aware of specific instances where 
adverse effects to the white fringeless orchid have occurred due to 
herbicide use in silvicultural operations, nor do we have data 
regarding the rates at which herbicides are used in silvicultural 
operations presently or in the past. Therefore, we have not added a 
discussion of herbicide use in silvicultural operations in the analysis 
of factors affecting the white fringeless orchid.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that Atlanta Botanical 
Garden (ABG) has developed asymbiotic (in the absence of symbiotic 
fungi), aseptic (free from contamination caused by harmful bacteria, 
viruses, or other microorganisms) in vitro propagation protocols that 
achieve much higher germination rates than the rate (less than 3 
percent) observed by other researchers in separate studies of in vitro 
and in situ seedling development (Zettler and McInnis 1992, pp. 157-
160; Zettler 1994, p. 65).
    Our Response: The Service is aware of the success that ABG has 
achieved in propagating the white fringeless orchid; however, we are 
not aware of specific rates of seedling germination that we can include 
in this rule. Effective propagation protocols could be a valuable tool, 
combined with science-based habitat management practices, for 
augmenting currently small populations or restoring populations in 
sites where the species is no longer extant but suitable habitat 
conditions remain. We will consider this information during development 
of a recovery plan for the species.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer commented on the discussion in the 
proposed listing rule about rates of fruit set in relation to 
population size, which cited Zettler et al. (1996, p. 22) and Zettler 
and McInnis (1992, p. 160) in suggesting that inbreeding depression 
could be a cause for the lower fruit set observed in smaller 
populations. The peer reviewer commented that low census numbers of 
flowering individuals and highly fragmented or degraded pollinator 
networks also could influence the low rates observed in smaller 
populations.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that other factors 
besides inbreeding depression, caused by increased rates of self-
pollination, could contribute to low rates of fruit set in small 
populations of the white fringeless orchid. However, we are not aware 
of specific data that indicate what those other factors might be.

Federal Agency Comments

    (5) Comment: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) commented that 
nearly 20 percent of extant white fringeless orchid occurrences are 
located in transportation or utility rights-of-way, illustrating that 
the species occurs in these settings at a disproportionately high rate 
when compared to their overall prevalence on the landscape. The TVA 
also commented that the proposed rule highlights the beneficial role 
that vegetation maintenance, if properly conducted, can play in 
maintaining suitable habitat for the white fringeless orchid and that 
herbicide resistance in the species could, in part, explain the 
positive response seen in one population following herbicide 
application in a TVA right-of-way.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that current distribution data 
indicate that the white fringeless orchid occurs in transportation or 
utility rights-of-way at a disproportionately high rate compared to the 
overall prevalence of these features on the landscape. One possible 
cause for the disproportionally high numbers of populations known from 
rights-of-way is that these areas are surveyed by TVA and other utility 
or transportation departments more frequently or intensively than the 
forested habitats where most populations are located. It might also be 
true that white fringeless orchid populations respond positively to the 
well-lit conditions found in rights-of-way, assuming that other threats 
related to maintenance or unauthorized use of rights-of-way (e.g., off-
road vehicle use) do not adversely affect the plants or their habitat. 
We commend TVA on its efforts to prevent adverse effects to rare 
species while conducting vegetation management or infrastructure 
maintenance in rights-of-way.
    Regarding the comment that herbicide resistance could explain the 
species' positive response to selective herbicide application, we are 
not aware of any data to support the assertion that the species is 
resistant to any registered herbicide products. It is possible that the 
selective nature of herbicide application to woody species by TVA or 
its contractors, rather than herbicide resistance generally, is 
responsible for the positive response seen following one known instance 
of potential exposure in a TVA right-of-way. This warrants further 
research.

[[Page 62829]]

Comments From States

    (6) Comment: The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 
commented that an occurrence located in a transportation right-of-way 
in Chattooga County, Georgia, is on lands owned by GDOT. GDOT also 
commented on its collaborative efforts with Georgia Power and ABG to 
manage the habitat and white fringeless orchid population at this site.
    Our Response: We include this information in this rule by adding 
GDOT to Table 2, above, which reports the number of occurrences on 
publicly owned or managed lands, and by discussing conservation efforts 
to restore this population under the heading Summary of Biological 
Status and Threats, below.

Public Comments

    (7) Comment: We received one comment recommending against listing 
the white fringeless orchid as threatened or endangered. The commenter 
stated that this opinion was based on the following: (1) The funds and 
human hours that would be spent on the white fringeless orchid could be 
spent elsewhere, such as on priority species; and (2) the species has 
already declined in great numbers since it became a candidate for 
listing in 1999, and it seems like more information is needed to allow 
for preparation of a recovery plan for the species.
    Our Response: The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires the Service 
to identify species of wildlife and plants that are endangered or 
threatened, based on the best available scientific and commercial data. 
As discussed in the proposed rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) and 
as summarized here, we have determined the threats to the white 
fringeless orchid warrant its listing as threatened under the Act.
    Regarding the commenter's assertion that the species has already 
declined in great numbers since 1999, the Service acknowledges that 
some populations have been lost or have declined since the species 
became a candidate for listing, but notes that several new populations 
have been discovered since that time. The Service's determination to 
list the species as threatened, rather than endangered, reflects our 
conclusion that the species is not at imminent risk of extinction. 
Further, contrary to the commenter's assertion that more information is 
needed to prepare a recovery plan, there are considerable biological 
data available, as summarized in the proposed rule (80 FR 55304; 
September 15, 2015), upon which a recovery plan can be based, as well 
as ongoing conservation efforts that the Service and its partners can 
build upon and learn from as we develop a recovery plan for the white 
fringeless orchid.
    (8) Comment: We received comments from four individuals or 
organizations recommending that we designate critical habitat for white 
fringeless orchid. Two of the commenters provided no information or 
data to support their recommendations. One commenter suggested that 
critical habitat would benefit conservation efforts for the white 
fringeless orchid for the following reasons: Most of the threats 
described in the proposed listing rule are related to habitat 
disturbance or loss; many populations are small and, in the commenter's 
opinion, would likely no longer exist absent critical habitat 
designation; and the threat of unauthorized collection is, in the 
commenter's opinion, neither imminent nor present. This commenter also 
suggested that a threatened species would experience protective 
benefits from critical habitat designation because of the requirement 
for Federal agencies to consult with the Service about projects that 
could potentially adversely affect critical habitat. Another commenter 
who recommended designating critical habitat cited the habitat 
specificity of the species and threats from human activity, such as 
logging and construction, as the reasons for this recommendation.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 
2015), we weighed the expected increase in threats associated with a 
critical habitat designation against the benefits that might be gained 
by a critical habitat designation. We acknowledge that, as two 
commenters observed, most of the threats described in the proposed rule 
are related to disturbance or destruction of habitat. However, many of 
the threats to habitat would not be alleviated by designation of 
critical habitat, as they are not caused by actions or undertakings of 
Federal agencies. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, 
including the Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of that species' critical habitat. Critical 
habitat only provides protections where there is a Federal nexus, that 
is, those actions that come under the purview of section 7 of the Act. 
Critical habitat designation has no application to actions that do not 
have a Federal nexus, including logging and construction on privately 
owned lands. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act mandates that Federal agencies, 
in consultation with the Service, evaluate the effects of its proposed 
action on any designated critical habitat. Similar to the Act's 
requirement that a Federal agency action not jeopardize the continued 
existence of listed species, Federal agencies have the responsibility 
not to implement actions that would destroy or adversely modify 
designated critical habitat. Critical habitat designation alone, 
however, does not require that a Federal action agency implement 
specific steps toward species recovery.
    Some of the populations on Federal lands are the largest known, and 
any future activity involving a Federal action that would destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat at these sites would also likely 
jeopardize the species' continued existence. Consultation with respect 
to critical habitat would provide additional protection to a species 
only if the agency action would result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of the critical habitat but would not jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. In the absence of a critical 
habitat designation, areas that support white fringeless orchid will 
continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under 
section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded 
by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as appropriate.
    We disagree with one commenter's assertion that because most 
populations are small they likely would no longer exist absent a 
critical habitat designation. On the contrary, the fact that most of 
the populations are small, combined with the fact that they are located 
in remote sites that are infrequently monitored by conservation 
organizations or law enforcement, led the Service to conclude that 
publishing locations of those populations in maps that would be 
required for a critical habitat designation would heighten the threat 
of collection. In small populations, the collection of even a few 
individuals would diminish reproductive output and likely reduce 
genetic diversity, reducing the resilience of those populations to 
recover from other threats to habitat or individual plants.
    Despite one commenter's assertion that the threat of collection is 
neither imminent nor present, the proposed rule documented that this 
threat is both present and imminent, as observed by Service and 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) biologists 
during 2014. Identification of critical habitat would increase the 
magnitude and severity of this threat by spatially depicting exactly 
where the

[[Page 62830]]

species may be found and widely publicizing this information, exposing 
these fragile populations and their habitat to greater risks. We have 
reviewed management plans and other documents produced by Federal and 
State conservation agencies and scientific literature, and detailed 
information on the specific locations of white fringeless orchid sites 
is not currently available.
    (9) Comment: We received comments from Georgia Power informing us 
of conservation efforts directed towards a roadside population in 
Chattooga County, Georgia, which also lies within a power transmission 
right-of-way. Georgia Power also commented on its collaborative efforts 
with GDNR to monitor, protect, and manage the occurrence located on 
GDNR lands in Rabun County, Georgia.
    Our Response: We have included this information under the heading 
Summary of Biological Status and Threats.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on these comments, in this final rule, we include two minor 
changes from the proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 
2015). Those changes are discussed above under the heading 
Distribution. Additionally, under the heading Summary of Biological 
Status and Threats, we include a discussion of conservation efforts 
based on comments we received from GDOT and Georgia Power.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    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 may be warranted 
based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. 
Each of these factors is discussed below.
    In the proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015), we 
carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the white 
fringeless orchid and provided a detailed account of those threats and 
the biological status of white fringeless orchid.
    We have determined that the threats to white fringeless orchid 
consist primarily of destruction and modification of habitat (Factor A) 
resulting in excessive shading, soil disturbance, altered hydrology, 
and proliferation of invasive plant species; collecting for 
recreational or commercial purposes (Factor B); herbivory (Factor C); 
and small population sizes and dependence on specific pollinators and 
fungi to complete its life cycle (Factor E). Existing regulatory 
mechanisms have not led to a reduction or removal of threats posed to 
the species from these factors (Factor D). We summarize each of those 
threats here. Please refer to the proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; 
September 15, 2015) for the full discussion.
    Habitat destruction and modification (Factor A) from development, 
silvicultural practices, excessive shading, and altered hydrology 
(i.e., pond construction, beaver dam removal) have resulted in 
extirpation of the species from 10 sites (Shea 1992, pp. 15, 25; TDEC 
2014). These threats, in addition to invasive plant species (U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) 2008, p. 53; Richards 2013, pers. comm.; KSNPC 
2014; TDEC 2014), feral hogs (Zettler 1994, p. 687; USFS 2008, p. 54; 
Richards 2013, pers. comm.; Richards 2014, pers. comm.; Tackett 2015, 
pers. comm.), and right-of-way maintenance (Taylor 2014, pers. comm.), 
are associated with habitat modifications affecting dozens of other 
occurrences that are extant or of uncertain status. The best available 
information indicates that habitat for many existing populations is 
adversely affected by factors that either directly harm individual 
white fringeless orchids or alter the plant communities, soils, and 
water flow in the sites where they occur. These factors include 
residential development, utility and road right-of-way maintenance, 
timber harvesting, invasive species encroachment, and vegetation 
succession in the absence of disturbance. Impacts to habitat from 
activities such as development and silvicultural practices include 
direct impacts such as habitat conversion and ground disturbance, and 
indirect impacts such as altered hydrology, increased shading, and 
introduction of invasive, nonnative plants. The threats to the white 
fringeless orchid from habitat destruction and modification are 
occurring throughout much of the species' range and these population-
level impacts are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
    During the comment period, GDOT and Georgia Power provided 
information on conservation efforts that have been directed to a 
roadside occurrence in Chattooga County, Georgia, which is located in a 
power transmission right-of-way. As noted in the proposed listing rule 
(80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015), this site was adversely affected by 
unauthorized collection in 2004, and remains vulnerable to this threat 
due to its location alongside a State highway. Georgia Power and GDOT 
have designated this site an ``Environmentally Sensitive Area,'' 
restricting mowing and herbicide use. They are also working with ABG to 
augment the population at this occurrence with plants propagated from 
seed collected at this site. Georgia Power is also collaborating with 
GDNR to protect, monitor, and manage another occurrence, located in 
Rabun County, Georgia, and reported that a prescribed burn was recently 
conducted in the area where this occurrence is located. ABG staff have 
collected seeds from this population to produce propagated plants that 
will be used to augment the population at this occurrence.
    Collecting for scientific, recreational, or commercial purposes 
(Factor B) has been determined to be the cause for extirpation of the 
white fringeless orchid at its type locality (Ettman and McAdoo 1979 
cited in Zettler and Fairey 1990, p. 212), and recent evidence 
demonstrates that collection remains a threat to this species. Fungal 
pathogens have been identified as a threat to white fringeless orchid, 
but a threat with potentially greater impact associated with Factor C 
is inflorescence herbivory, presumably by deer (Zettler and Fairey 
1990, p. 212-214). Flower herbivory has been reported at over one-third 
of extant occurrences and likely is a factor threatening most white 
fringeless orchid occurrences (Shea 1992, pp. 27, 61, 71-77, 95-97; 
TDEC 2012, p. 3; KSNPC 2014; TDEC 2014), especially where low numbers 
of plants are present. Tuber herbivory or soil disturbance by feral 
hogs has been reported at multiple occurrences, including the site 
harboring the largest known white fringeless orchid population (Zettler 
1994, p. 687; USFS 2008, p. 54).
    The effects of all of the above-described threats are intensified 
by the small population sizes that characterize a majority of 
occurrences throughout the species' geographic range (Factor E), due to 
their diminished capacity to recover from loss of individuals or low

[[Page 62831]]

reproductive output resulting from other threats (Zettler et al. 1996, 
p. 22). Further, the species' dependence on a limited number of 
Lepidoptera (Zettler et al. 1996, p. 16) and a single species of fungi 
(Currah et al. 1997, p. 30) to complete its life cycle make it 
vulnerable to disturbances that diminish habitat suitability for these 
taxa as well (Factor E). Climate has changed in recent decades in the 
southeastern United States, and the rate of change likely will continue 
to increase into the future (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 111-112) (Factor E). 
Although we do not have data to determine specifically how the habitats 
where the white fringeless orchid occurs will be affected by, or how 
the species will respond to, these changes, the potential for adverse 
effects to the white fringeless orchid, either through changes in 
habitat suitability or effects on populations of pollinators or 
mycorrhizal fungi, is likely to increase as climate continues to change 
at an accelerating rate.

Determination

    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. The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is 
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that white fringeless orchid 
is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range within the foreseeable future based on the low to moderate 
threats currently impacting the species. The species is known to be 
extant at 57 locations (see Table 1, above), but low numbers of 
individuals have been observed at more than half of these (see Figure 1 
in the proposed listing rule: 80 FR 55304, September 15, 2015, p. 
55309), distributed across the species' range, and their persistence 
into the future is uncertain. Furthermore, the threats of habitat 
destruction or modification and herbivory are present throughout the 
species' geographic range. Left unmanaged, these threats will likely 
lead to further reductions in the species' geographic range and 
abundance at individual sites, increasing the risk of extinction to the 
point of endangerment. The combination of small population sizes 
combined with the white fringeless orchid's dependence on specific 
pollinators and fungi to complete its life cycle diminishes the 
resilience of populations to recover from adverse effects of threats 
due to habitat destruction or modification and herbivory.
    Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we are listing the white fringeless orchid as 
threatened in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 
The species does not currently meet the definition of endangered 
species, because a sufficient number of robust populations are present 
on publicly owned or managed lands, which despite numerous threats, are 
actively managed such that the risk of extinction is not imminent. 
Furthermore, conservation efforts have been initiated that could be 
effective in reducing threats by increasing population sizes and 
improving habitat conditions across much of the species' geographic 
range.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the 
white fringeless orchid is threatened throughout all of its range, no 
portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the 
definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See 
the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion 
of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of 
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 
2014).

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened 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. 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. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing 
or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes 
available. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and 
State agencies, nongovernmental 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 
our 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, Tribes, 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.
    Following publication of this final listing rule, 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

[[Page 62832]]

organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the 
States of Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee 
and the Commonwealth of Kentucky will be eligible for Federal funds to 
implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of 
the white fringeless orchid. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the white fringeless orchid. 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 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)(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 any endangered or threatened 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 consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
consultation, as described in the preceding paragraph, include 
management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands 
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS), and National Park Service (NPS); issuance of section 404 Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; powerline right-of-way construction and maintenance by the 
TVA; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the 
Federal Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and 
threatened plants. With regard to threatened plants, 50 CFR 17.71 
provides that all of the prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.61 applicable to 
endangered plants apply to threatened plants, with one exception. Thus, 
the regulations at 50 CFR 17.71(a) make it illegal for any person 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, 
transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a 
commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas 
under Federal jurisdiction any threatened plant. There is an exception 
for the seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a statement that 
the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the seeds or their 
container. The Act itself, at 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(2)(B), prohibits 
malicious damage or destruction of any such species on any area under 
Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging 
or destroying of any such species on any other area in knowing 
violation of any State law or regulation, or in the course of any 
violation of a State criminal trespass law.
    Under 50 CFR 17.72, we may issue permits to carry out otherwise 
prohibited activities involving threatened plants under certain 
circumstances. A permit issued under this section must be for one of 
the following: Scientific purposes, the enhancement of the propagation 
or survival of threatened species, economic hardship, botanical or 
horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or other activities 
consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act.
    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 final listing 
on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed 
species. Based on the best available information, the following 
activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 the Act; 
this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of white fringeless orchid, 
including interstate transportation across State lines and import or 
export across international boundaries, except for properly documented 
antique specimens of this species at least 100 years old, as defined by 
section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
    (2) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of white 
fringeless orchid plants from populations located on Federal land 
(USFS, NPS, and Service lands); and
    (3) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of white 
fringeless orchid plants on private land in violation of any State 
regulation, including criminal trespass.
    At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that 
would not be considered to result in a violation of section 9 of the 
Act because the white fringeless orchid occurs in a variety of habitat 
conditions across its range and it is likely that site-specific 
conservation measures may be needed for activities that may directly or 
indirectly affect the species. Questions regarding whether specific 
activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should 
be directed to the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Required Determinations

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, need not be prepared in connection with 
listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by adding an entry for ``Platanthera 
integrilabia'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened

[[Page 62833]]

Plants in alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
         Scientific name              Common name        Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Flowering Plants
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Platanthera integrilabia........  White fringeless    Wherever found....  T              81 FR [Insert Federal
                                   orchid.                                                Register page where
                                                                                          the document begins];
                                                                                          September 13, 2016.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: August 23, 2016.
James W. Kurth,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-21954 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P