[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40100-40115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14291]



[[Page 40100]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0063; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BD83


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification 
of Smooth Coneflower From Endangered To Threatened With a Section 4(d) 
Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), reclassify 
smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) from endangered to threatened 
(``downlist'') under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act), due to improvements in the species' overall status since the 
original listing in 1992. This action is based on a thorough review of 
the best available scientific and commercial information, which 
indicates that smooth coneflower is not currently in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, but it 
is still likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We are also 
finalizing a rule under section 4(d) of the Act that provides for the 
conservation of smooth coneflower.

DATES: This rule is effective August 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Public comments and materials we received, as well as 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available 
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2020-0063.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, 
551-F Pylon Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone (919) 856-4520. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant 
reclassification from endangered to threatened if it no longer meets 
the definition of endangered (in danger of extinction throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range). Smooth coneflower is listed as 
endangered, and we are reclassifying smooth coneflower as threatened 
(i.e., ``downlisting'' the species) because we have determined it is 
not currently in danger of extinction. Reclassifying a species under 
the Act can only be accomplished by issuing a rule through the 
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process.
    What this document does. This rule reclassifies smooth coneflower 
from endangered to threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants (List), with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the 
Act, based on the species' current status, which has been improved 
through implementation of conservation actions.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of 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 may reclassify a species if the best available 
commercial and scientific data indicate the species no longer meets the 
applicable definition in the Act. We have determined that smooth 
coneflower is no longer in danger of extinction and, therefore, does 
not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species, but the species 
does meet the Act's definition of a threatened species because there 
are not enough permanently protected or managed populations to 
ameliorate ongoing habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation from 
development. Existing management and regulatory mechanisms are not 
sufficient to protect the species from these threats such that it is 
not in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future.
    Peer review and public comment. During the proposed rule stage, we 
sought the expert opinions of four appropriate specialists regarding 
the proposed reclassification rule. We received responses from two peer 
reviewers, which informed our determination. Information we received 
from peer review is incorporated into this final rule. We also 
considered all comments and information we received from the public 
during the comment period, but none of these changed our determination.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed downlisting rule for smooth coneflower 
published on June 24, 2021 (86 FR 33159), for a detailed description of 
previous Federal actions concerning this species.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered all 
comments we received during the comment period from the peer reviewers 
and the public on the proposed rule to reclassify smooth coneflower. 
Minor, nonsubstantive changes and corrections are made throughout this 
document in response to comments. However, the information we received 
during the peer review and public comment period on the proposed rule 
did not change our analysis, rationales, or determination for either 
reclassifying the smooth coneflower as a threatened species under the 
Act or the 4(d) rule for the species.

I. Final Reclassification Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and 
overall viability of smooth coneflower is presented in the recovery 
plan (Service 1995, entire), the 5-year review (Service 2011, entire), 
and the proposed downlisting rule (86 FR 33159; June 24, 2021). Smooth 
coneflower is a perennial herb in the aster family (Asteraceae). It was 
first described as Brauneria laevigata by Boynton and Beadle in 1903, 
from material collected in South Carolina (SC) in 1888. It was 
transferred to the genus Echinacea in 1929 (Small 1933, p. 1421; 
McGregor 1968, p. 120). Smooth coneflower grows up to 1.5 meters (59 
inches (in)) tall from a vertical root stock; stems are smooth, with 
few leaves. Flower heads are usually solitary and are composed of ray 
flowers and disk flowers. The ray flowers (petal-like structures on 
composite flower heads) are light pink to purplish, strongly drooping, 
and 5 to 8 centimeters (cm; 1.9 to 3.1 in) long. Disk flowers (tiny 
tubular flowers in the central portion of composite flower head) are 
about 5 millimeters (mm) (0.2 in) long. Flowering occurs from May 
through July, and fruits develop from late June to September (Gaddy 
1991, p. 18). Sexual reproduction results in a gray-brown, oblong-
prismatic achene (dry, one-seeded fruit). Asexual reproduction in the 
form of short clonal rhizomes make new rosettes in both

[[Page 40101]]

garden and wild settings (Kunz 2018, pers. comm.). Smooth coneflower is 
dependent on insect pollinators for cross pollination. While skippers, 
butterflies, and wasps are frequent floral visitors, bees are believed 
to be the most effective pollinators (Gadd 2006, p. 15; Collins and 
Fore 2009, pp. 452-454).
    In this rule, we follow guidance for defining element occurrences 
(EOs) and populations described by NatureServe (2002, pp. 10-11; 
NatureServe 2004, pp. 6, 14). We define an EO as any current (or 
historical) location where smooth coneflower occurs (or occurred), 
regardless of the spatial relationship with other EOs. We define a 
population as either a stand-alone EO isolated by distance of 
unsuitable habitat (separated from other EOs by 2 kilometers (km) (1.2 
miles (mi)) or more), or as a principal EO. A principal EO is two or 
more EOs located less than or equal to 2 km (1.2 mi) from each other, 
with suitable habitat in between them. For the purposes of evaluating 
the recovery of this species, it is most appropriate to consider 
populations rather than individual EOs.
    At the time of listing in 1992, smooth coneflower had 21 extant 
populations (57 FR 46340; October 8, 1992). When the recovery plan was 
written in 1995, there were 24 known populations rangewide, with an 
additional 3 populations in SC that were considered of cultivated 
origin at that time but are now believed to be natural populations, for 
a total of 27 populations (Service 1995, p. 2). New smooth coneflower 
occurrences have been discovered since the time of listing. Current 
State Natural Heritage Program database records document 44 extant 
populations of smooth coneflower (table 1).

  Table 1--Total Number of Extant Populations of Smooth Coneflower That
           Occur in Each State Within the Range of the Species
   [Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) 2019, unpaginated;
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) 2019, unpaginated; South
   Carolina Heritage Trust Program (SCHTP) 2019, unpaginated; Virginia
 Division of Natural Heritage (VADNH) 2018, unpaginated; White 2018, p.
                                   6]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                          State                               extant
                                                            populations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia (VA)...........................................              15
North Carolina (NC).....................................               6
South Carolina (SC).....................................              12
Georgia (GA)............................................              11
                                                         ---------------
    Totals..............................................              44
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of listing in 1992, all of the known smooth coneflower 
populations occurred in the piedmont or mountain physiographic 
provinces of GA, SC, NC, and VA. Since listing, new populations have 
been found in the inner coastal plain/sandhills region of SC (White 
2018, p. 4) and the coastal plain of GA (Moffett 2018, pers. comm.).
    Smooth coneflower is typically found in open woods, glades, cedar 
barrens, roadsides, clear cuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line 
rights-of-way (ROWs). The species is usually found on magnesium- and 
calcium-rich soils associated with amphibolite, dolomite, or limestone 
(in VA); gabbro (in NC and VA); diabase (in NC and SC); marble, sandy 
loams, chert, and amphibolites (in SC and GA); and shallow soils with 
minor bedrock exposures (in GA) (Service 1995, pp. 2-3; White 2018, p. 
4; GADNR 2019, unpaginated). The healthiest smooth coneflower 
populations are managed with prescribed fire or mechanical thinning, 
which provides smooth coneflower plants abundant sunlight and little 
competition from other plant species (Gaddy 1991, p. 1).
    Land managers and biologists have routinely monitored smooth 
coneflower populations since before the species was listed in 1992. 
Monitoring at most populations usually involves a flowering stem count, 
while each rosette of leaves is counted at some sites. Flowering stem 
counts are generally the most common survey method because they require 
less time and biologists generally agree that plants produce no more 
than one flowering stem per growing season, making this method a 
conservative count of how many plants actually exist at a site. Basal 
rosettes and plants in vegetative state (non-flowering) can be very 
hard to find and count in dense herbaceous vegetation (NC Plant 
Conservation Program (NCPCP) 2018, unpaginated; White 2018, entire).
    The species displays a relatively high level of genetic diversity 
based on analyses across the range of populations (Peters et al. 2009, 
pp. 12-13). There is also significant population genetic 
differentiation and a majority of the genetic variance is attributed to 
variation within populations, suggesting that populations may be 
adapting to local environments (Apsit and Dixon 2001, entire). Because 
this genetic variation exists, all populations should be maintained to 
conserve genetic diversity since each population contains only a subset 
of the total genetic variation. Regional population differentiation may 
be important in the selection of material to establish new populations, 
which suggests that, for greatest success, reintroduction projects use 
local source material (Apsit and Dixon 2001, p. 76).

Recovery

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species, unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include 
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 
Act, that the species be removed from the List.
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and determinations with respect to the 
species' status must be made consistent with section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to delist a 
species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available to determine

[[Page 40102]]

whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened 
species, regardless of whether that information differs from the 
recovery plan.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently, and that the 
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may 
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery 
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these 
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. 
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we 
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent 
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of 
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management that may, or may not, align with all criteria 
provided in a recovery plan.

Recovery Criteria

    The Smooth Coneflower Recovery Plan was approved by the Service on 
April 18, 1995 (Service 1995, entire). It includes recovery criteria 
intended to indicate when threats to the species have been addressed to 
the point the species may no longer meet the definition of an 
endangered species or threatened species and describes actions or tasks 
necessary to achieve those criteria.
    The recovery plan identifies five downlisting criteria for smooth 
coneflower (Service 1995, p. 12):
    1. Twelve (12) geographically distinct, self-sustaining populations 
are protected across the species' range, including populations in at 
least two counties in VA, two counties in NC, two counties in SC, and 
one county in GA;
    2. At least nine of these populations must be in areas within the 
species' native ecosystem (not in gardens or similar artificial 
settings) that are in permanent conservation ownership and management;
    3. Managers have been designated for each protected population;
    4. Management plans have been developed and implemented for each 
protected population; and
    5. Populations have been maintained at stable or increasing levels 
for 5 years.
    The recovery plan also identifies the following five delisting 
criteria for smooth coneflower (Service 1995, p. 12):
    1. Fifteen (15) geographically distinct, self-sustaining 
populations are protected across the species' range, including 
populations in at least two counties in VA, two counties in NC, two 
counties in SC, and one county in GA;
    2. At least nine of these populations must be in areas within the 
species' native ecosystem (not in gardens or similar artificial 
settings) that are in permanent conservation ownership and management;
    3. Managers have been designated for each protected population;
    4. Management plans have been developed and implemented for each 
protected population; and
    5. Populations have been maintained at stable or increasing levels 
for 10 years.

Downlisting/Delisting Criteria 1 and 2 (Twelve (12) or Fifteen (15) 
Protected Self-Sustaining Populations in Native Ecosystem)

    Both criteria 1 and 2 for downlisting and delisting have been met. 
We currently know of 44 extant populations throughout the species' 
range. Of those 44, 16 populations ranked with excellent to good 
viability are found in areas where the habitat is under protective 
status (like a National Forest). As of 2019, 33 smooth coneflower 
populations are either on Federal lands or are in conservation 
ownership (9 in GA, 5 in NC, 12 in SC, and 7 in VA), 16 of which are 
ranked A (excellent viability; see tables 2 and 3, below), AB 
(excellent/good viability), or B (good viability) by their respective 
State Natural Heritage Programs (4 in GA, 3 in NC, 5 in SC, and 4 in 
VA). These populations are considered protected because they occur on 
several National Forests managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), as 
well as lands owned and managed by State agencies, The Nature 
Conservancy (TNC), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. 
Department of Energy (USDOE), and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). 
Management plans in existence for many of these populations are 
detailed below.

   Table 2--State Distribution, Heritage Program Rank, Ownership, and Availability of Management Plan for the
                                     Highly Resilient, Protected Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State                 Population name      Heritage rank *        Ownership       Management plan?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA............................  GA-A                  AB                   Federal.........  yes.
GA............................  GA-B                  B                    Federal.........  yes.
GA............................  GA-C                  B                    Federal.........  yes.
GA............................  GA-D                  B                    Federal.........  yes.
NC............................  NC-A                  A                    Federal, State..  no.
NC............................  NC-B                  A                    State...........  yes.
NC............................  NC-C                  B                    Federal.........  no.
SC............................  SC-A                  AB                   Federal.........  yes.
SC............................  SC-B                  B                    Federal.........  yes.
SC............................  SC-C                  A                    Federal, State..  yes.
SC............................  SC-D                  A                    Federal.........  yes.
SC............................  SC-E                  AB                   Federal.........  yes.
VA............................  VA-A                  A                    State...........  yes.
VA............................  VA-B                  A                    Private.........  yes.
VA............................  VA-C                  AB                   State...........  no.
VA............................  VA-D                  AB                   State...........  yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Heritage Ranks: A = excellent viability; AB = excellent/good viability; B = good viability.


[[Page 40103]]

    With regard to the requirement in criterion 1 that populations be 
self-sustaining, we evaluated the resiliency of each population by 
looking at the ranks as assigned by the State Natural Heritage 
Programs. These 16 protected populations are ranked either A, AB, or B 
(six are ranked A, five are ranked AB, and five are ranked B (see 
tables 2 and 3)). These 16 highly resilient populations (i.e., those 
that have good to excellent viability scores (Table 3)) are scattered 
across the range of the species, including one county in GA (Stephens), 
two counties in NC (Durham and Granville), two counties in SC (Barnwell 
and Oconee), and three counties in VA (Franklin, Halifax, and 
Montgomery). These populations span mountain, piedmont, and coastal 
plain physiographic provinces.

                                   Table 3--Smooth Coneflower Ranking Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Size and type of
     Heritage rank              Viability           Number of plants          habitat         Management regime
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................  Excellent..............  >1,000; flowering     >5 acres (>2         open (disturbed)
                                                   annually.             hectares); open      from periodic
                                                                         glade or prairie     fires, optimal
                                                                         remnant.             soil conditions.
B......................  Good...................  100-1,000; most       1-5 acres; open      mostly open by
                                                   flowering annually.   glade or prairie     periodic fires or
                                                                         remnant.             other disturbance.
C......................  Fair...................  10-100; 50% or fewer  any size glade or    limited.
                                                   flowering annually.   prairie remnant;
                                                                         or isolated
                                                                         roadside or
                                                                         utility ROW with
                                                                         remnant glade or
                                                                         prairie flora.
D......................  Poor...................  <10; may not fewer    remnant glades or    limited.
                                                   flower annually.      isolated ROWs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of these populations occur in the species' natural ecosystem, 
which includes habitats such as open woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, 
and other habitat that is usually (but not always) found on magnesium- 
and calcium-rich soil. For many of the larger A- and B-ranked 
populations, the site ranks have not changed significantly over recent 
years.
    The remaining 28 extant populations are ranked C (fair viability), 
D (poor viability), or E (extant, but their viability has not been 
assessed). A rank of X is given to sites considered to be extirpated, 
where evidence indicates that the species no longer exists in that 
location. A rank of H is given to sites considered to be historical, 
where recent field information verifying the continued existence of the 
population is lacking. We estimated that C-, D-, and E-ranked 
populations have low resiliency, and sites ranked H or X were not 
evaluated for resiliency because plants have not been found at those 
sites in recent years.

Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 3 (Managers Have Been Designated for 
Each Protected Population)

    We verified ownership and management status of each of the 16 
highly resilient, protected populations on Federal, State, and private 
conservation lands, to ensure that a land manager responsible for 
overseeing the management of smooth coneflower has been assigned. The 
four highly resilient populations in GA are managed by the USFS 
(Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest) with assistance from the Atlanta 
Botanical Garden, State Botanical Garden of Georgia, and Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). The three highly resilient 
populations in NC are managed by the North Carolina Department of 
Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDACS) Research Stations Division, 
North Carolina Plant Conservation Program (NCPCP), USACE, and NC 
Botanical Garden (NCBG). In SC, most of the highly resilient 
populations occur on the Sumter National Forest, and four of the five 
highly resilient populations are managed by the Sumter National Forest, 
with one of those sites being co-owned and managed by South Carolina 
Heritage Trust Program (SCHTP) as a Heritage Trust Preserve. The other 
highly resilient population, at the Savannah River Site, is owned by 
the USDOE and managed by the USFS. In VA, the four highly resilient 
populations are managed by the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage 
(VADNH), USFS (George Washington National Forest), and TNC.
    Site managers have been identified for all 16 highly resilient 
populations identified under criteria 1 and 2 above; therefore, we 
consider this criterion to have been met.

Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 4 (Management Plans Implemented)

    Because smooth coneflower requires early to mid-successional 
habitat, all highly resilient populations have received and will 
require some form of management in perpetuity to help maintain habitat 
in the right balance so that populations can thrive. Management 
techniques include the use of prescribed fire, well-timed mowing, 
mechanical clearing (including the use of chain saws to cut trees), and 
herbicides (selectively applied to cut stumps to prevent regrowth). All 
of these management actions have been implemented separately or in 
combination to sustain suitable habitat for smooth coneflower. Of the 
16 highly resilient populations considered in criteria 1 and 2, 13 of 
them can be considered to be included in management plans. However, 
these plans vary in scope and level of specificity toward smooth 
coneflower, and most plans are outdated. Only six of the plans are 
specific to the management of smooth coneflower, while the others 
address the overall management of an entire site but include some 
actions that may be beneficial to smooth coneflower. Of the six plans 
that are specific to the management of smooth coneflower, four were 
developed in the mid-1990s, and two were developed in the early 2000s. 
In the past 20 years, we have learned a lot about how to best manage 
the species with fire, as well as how to manage for invasive species. 
Many of these management practices (e.g., conducting prescribed burns 
or mechanical clearing every 3 to 5 years, or controlling invasive 
species) need to be incorporated into older management plans.
    Management plans exist for three of the four highly resilient 
smooth coneflower populations in VA, although new information about 
fire intervals could improve management of several sites (e.g., VA-A, 
VA-B, and VA-D) (Heffernan et al. 2002, pp. 1-2; SanJule 2007, p. 5; 
USDA Forest Service 2014, entire). In NC, the site of the largest 
smooth coneflower population (NC-B) has been actively managed using 
prescribed fire, mowing, and other mechanical means as recommended by 
species experts (Barnett-Lawrence 1994, pp. 18-20, appendix 10; 
Barnett-Lawrence 1995, pp. 18-19; NCNHP 1996, unpaginated), but two of 
the

[[Page 40104]]

highly resilient populations lack management plans altogether. In SC, 
all highly resilient populations occurring on the Sumter National 
Forest in SC (SC-A, SC-B, SC-C, and SC-D) are managed by prescribed 
fire and mechanical clearing. While the Sumter National Forest Revised 
Land and Resource Management Plan is from 2004, this plan directs the 
USFS to maintain or restore at least eight self-sustaining populations 
of smooth coneflower (USDA Forest Service 2004, pp. 2-9; Roecker 2001, 
entire), a practice that is in effect today. In GA, the USFS adequately 
uses prescribed fire, mechanical clearing, and herbicide application to 
maintain open, glade-like woodland habitat for smooth coneflower and 
associated species at highly resilient populations (GA-A, GA-B, GA-C, 
and GA-D).
    In summary, 13 of the 16 highly resilient (A-, AB-, and B-ranked) 
smooth coneflower populations are included in management plans, but 
only 6 of them specifically address smooth coneflower management. These 
plans vary in level of detail, scope, and time commitment, and several 
need to be updated with improved fire management and invasive species 
management practices. We find that the implementation of regular, 
dedicated management for the highly resilient populations is the reason 
these smooth coneflower populations are large, healthy, and viable, and 
contribute toward the recovery of the species. However, the Service 
considers criterion 4 for smooth coneflower to have been only partially 
met because not all populations have management plans, and several of 
the existing plans are out of date. The Service has developed a 
template management plan that land managers can use as a guide when 
developing or updating rare species management plans, particularly 
those that focus on smooth coneflower management, and we will be 
working toward getting all plans established and updated as part of our 
ongoing recovery work.

Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 5 (Stable or Increasing Populations for 
5 or 10 Years)

    Land managers conduct site visits to their respective smooth 
coneflower populations on a regular basis to assess population size and 
health and to determine what management actions, if any, are needed. 
Monitoring generally involves a flowering stem count, which is a 
conservative count of how many plants exist at a site (NCPCP 2018, 
unpaginated; White 2018, entire).
    Virginia smooth coneflower populations occur on USFS, TNC, and 
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VADCR) lands. These 
sites have been monitored by their respective land managers and 
researchers over the last 30 years. Because several of the smooth 
coneflower preserves in VA are large in size, a complete census has not 
been conducted every year, although the sites have been monitored 
during regular management activities. All four highly resilient 
populations in VA are considered stable over the 30+ years they have 
been monitored.
    Land managers in NC have collected monitoring data on their smooth 
coneflower populations for decades. Of the high resiliency smooth 
coneflower populations in North Carolina, one has been increasing over 
the 14-year monitoring period, and two are stable over the 31-year 
monitoring period (NCPCP 2018, unpaginated).
    South Carolina sites on the Sumter National Forest and a State-
owned Heritage Preserve have been monitored since 1990 (White 2018, p. 
6, table 1). A recent status survey of all of the smooth coneflower 
sites in SC determined that since 2006, trends indicated that for the 
most resilient SC smooth coneflower populations, four appear to be 
increasing in size, and one is considered stable, for at least the past 
14 years.
    All four of the highly resilient smooth coneflower populations in 
GA occur on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest in northeastern 
GA. Biologists with the USFS, State Botanical Garden of Georgia, 
Atlanta Botanical Garden, GADNR, and Georgia Plant Conservation 
Alliance have visited these populations on a regular basis since the 
species was proposed for listing in 1991 and a Statewide status survey 
was conducted in 2000 (Sullivan 2000, entire). Monitoring data are 
intermittent, but the four highly resilient populations have been 
considered stable for the past 20 years since the Statewide status 
survey (Suiter 2020, pers. comm.).
    Without more detailed data, it is difficult to determine specific 
trends, but based on our analysis of monitoring data and recent 
observations, we conclude that all of the 16 A-, AB-, and B- ranked 
(good to excellent resiliency) protected populations have been stable 
or increasing for more than 10 years; therefore, we consider this 
recovery criterion to have been met.

Summary

    The implementation of recovery actions for smooth coneflower has 
significantly reduced the risk of extinction for the species. As 
indicated above, many smooth coneflower populations are protected on 
public (Federal and State) and private lands, such as TNC preserves in 
VA. The most highly resilient smooth coneflower populations (i.e., 
those considered contributing to species' recovery) are considered 
stable or increasing. Current information indicates that smooth 
coneflower is more abundant, and its range is somewhat larger, than 
when the species was listed. However, management plans for all 
protected populations are lacking, as only six specifically focus on 
management for smooth coneflower. Many of the existing management plans 
are out of date, from the 1990s and early 2000s, or are not being 
currently implemented.

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The 
Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine 
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
because of any of the following 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.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects. We consider these same five 
factors in reclassifying a species from endangered to threatened (50 
CFR 424.11(c)). Even though we are not delisting the species at this 
time, we also consider the risk to the species if it were not listed 
under the Act to better understand the species' future without the 
protections of the Act.

[[Page 40105]]

    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of 
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative 
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that 
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing 
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines 
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' 
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative 
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in 
the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the 
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable 
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to 
depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Summary of Biological Condition and Threats

    When we published the final rule to list smooth coneflower as an 
endangered species (57 FR 46340; October 8, 1992), the identified 
threats (factors) were the absence of natural disturbance (fire and/or 
grazing), highway construction and improvement, gas line installation, 
and residential and industrial development (Factor A); collecting 
(Factor B); beetle damage (Factor C); inadequacy of existing State 
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and low genetic variability, 
herbicide use, and possible encroachment of exotic species (Factor E).
    The following analysis evaluates these previously identified 
threats, any other threats currently facing the species, and any other 
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the 
foreseeable future, including cumulatively or synergistically.

Habitat Degradation or Loss Due To Development and Absence of Natural 
Disturbance

    Smooth coneflower plants require open, sunny conditions to survive. 
Without regular disturbance such as fire, woody shrubs and trees create 
a dense canopy that prevents sunlight from reaching the forest floor 
where this herbaceous species occurs. Smooth coneflower is intolerant 
of dense shade and tends to die out after a few years of shady 
conditions.
    Smooth coneflower occurrences on private land are vulnerable to 
habitat loss due to degradation, which results from fire suppression or 
the absence of other disturbances that maintain the habitat in an open 
state. For example, in Rockingham County, NC, a small smooth coneflower 
population occurred on private land in an open woodland between a 
highway and a railroad track. The lack of management or fire resulted 
in the site becoming overgrown, and no plants have been observed there 
in recent years. To encourage smooth coneflower growth, the site needs 
fire or mechanical disturbance in order to remove woody vegetation and 
open the forest floor to sunlight (NCNHP 2019, unpaginated).
    Development projects, such as residential and commercial 
construction and highway and utility construction and maintenance, pose 
a threat to smooth coneflower populations by clearing areas where the 
species occurs, thereby destroying populations. Further, development in 
close proximity to smooth coneflower populations may preclude the 
ability to use fire as a management tool at nearby protected 
populations because of the threat of fires escaping the management area 
and objections to smoke blowing into developed areas. For example, a 
smooth coneflower population on a small parcel of USFS land in 
Habersham County, GA, has declined over recent years due the difficulty 
in managing fire on a parcel surrounded by private property. The lack 
of management has resulted in the growth of woody plants that have 
shaded smooth coneflower plants and resulted in this population's 
decline (Radcliffe 2019, pers. comm.). As residential and commercial 
development continue to occur in the suburbs of Durham, NC, it will 
become harder to manage some of the adjacent smooth coneflower sites 
with fire (Starke 2019, pers. comm.).
    While we are not aware of any smooth coneflower populations that 
have been destroyed due to residential or commercial development since 
the species was listed, this threat remains a concern. Recently, a new 
subpopulation of smooth coneflower was discovered on a property in 
Durham County, NC, that is slated for development. If a rare plant 
survey had not been conducted and these plants discovered, they would 
have been destroyed by the development of the site (Starke 2019, pers. 
comm.). There are likely additional undiscovered populations of smooth 
coneflower that are subject to destruction.
    Development pressure based on urbanization predictions from the 
SLEUTH urban growth model indicate that all of the NC counties, more 
than half of the SC counties, and both of the northeastern GA counties 
of occurrence for smooth coneflower will exhibit high (greater than 90 
percent) growth trends over the next 20 to 30 years as part of the 
``southern megalopolis,'' or giant urban sprawl area in the Southeast 
(Terando et al. 2014, p. 3; Databasin 2014, entire). Smooth coneflower 
populations that occur on private lands in these counties will continue 
to face threats from development and land conversion in the foreseeable 
future. Most of the VA counties of occurrence are outside the 
boundaries of the

[[Page 40106]]

southern megalopolis and the VA urban crescent in the eastern part of 
the State (Databasin 2014, entire).
    Smooth coneflower occurs on roadsides and utility ROWs throughout 
the range of the species. These populations are vulnerable to 
management practices that could negatively impact or destroy them. 
Herbicides, which are typically harmful to all plants, are often used 
to manage vegetation along road shoulders and in utility ROWs. 
Herbicide damage can be temporary or permanent depending on the 
herbicide used and the rate of application. Although dormant season 
(winter) mowing is generally not problematic for disturbance-dependent 
species, as it helps reduce competition and maintain sites in an open 
condition, any mowing that occurs during the growing season but before 
plants produce mature seeds is considered harmful because it arrests 
seed development and reproductive potential for that year. Smooth 
coneflower plants growing on a utility ROW in Granville County, NC, 
were accidentally sprayed with herbicides, killing many plants in this 
population (NCNHP 2019, unpaginated). Herbicide damage to smooth 
coneflowers has also occurred at the Savannah River Site in SC, but the 
population was able to recover (White 2018, Appendix 3, entire). 
Roadside and utility ROW occurrences are difficult to manage in an 
early successional state without harming smooth coneflower plants. For 
example, woody species encroachment has caused the decline of some 
smooth coneflower sites that occur in ROWs in Durham County, NC. In 
some cases, it is possible to manage lands adjacent to ROW populations 
by, for example, removing woody species to create suitable habitat for 
the species, encouraging the plant to gradually occupy habitat away 
from the ROW; however, adjacent, protected land does not always exist 
(Stark 2019, pers. comm.). In the status survey of smooth coneflower 
populations in SC, (White 2018, appendix 3, entire) indicates that many 
populations still face competition by woody species, the presence of 
invasive species, and road ROW maintenance.
    The protection of some smooth coneflower populations has been 
accomplished through active management and reducing the impacts of 
development. These efforts are critical to the long-term survival of 
this species. Recognizing the importance of long-term management of 
smooth coneflower populations, management plans that incorporate the 
use of prescribed fire and/or mechanized vegetation control have been 
prepared for several populations. The Service is working with many 
landowners that have smooth coneflower populations to complete or 
update management plans for their populations, as most management plans 
were first developed in the 1990s and early 2000s and need to 
incorporate new fire management and invasive species management 
practices. In 2018, we provided land managers with a management plan 
outline to facilitate the completion of thorough management plans. Due 
to greater awareness of the important role of fire in natural systems, 
prescribed fire and mechanical thinning are now regularly used as 
management tools on National Forests, military bases, nature preserves, 
and other protected lands where smooth coneflower occurs. Land managers 
such as the USFS, DOD, USACE, and Savannah River Site, among others, 
use prescribed fire on a 2- to 4-year interval as a management tool to 
control woody vegetation that might otherwise shade this disturbance-
dependent species. For sites that are not managed intentionally for 
smooth coneflower, management practices will likely continue even if 
the species is not listed under the Act, primarily because the active 
management benefits the overall habitat and meets the management 
objectives of the landowner. In general, the management benefits smooth 
coneflower, and without it, the habitat conditions for smooth 
coneflower would likely degrade and we would need to reassess the 
status of the species under the Act. For the most part, management 
plans for many of the protected populations of smooth coneflower have 
been in place for several years, but we do not know if management 
actions would change for these populations if the species were not 
listed.
    While development pressure on smooth coneflower populations on 
private lands remains, the threat of development for the most highly 
resilient populations is reduced, as they occur only on protected 
lands. As discussed earlier, many smooth coneflower populations occur 
on Federal lands, such as those owned or managed by the USFS (George 
Washington and Jefferson National Forests in VA, Sumter National Forest 
in SC, and Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest in GA), USACE (Falls 
Lake), DOD (Fort Stewart and Fort Jackson Army Bases), and USDOE 
(Savannah River Site). These populations are protected on Federal lands 
from the threats of ecological succession or destruction due to 
development, primarily because Federal partners are vested in the 
protection of the species under their management plans. Some smooth 
coneflower sites occur on active military bases with limited public 
access, such as Fort Jackson and Fort Stewart Army Bases, providing 
further protection of these populations. Likewise, the Savannah River 
Site, a former nuclear weapons facility, is closed to the public, and 
no development or construction is allowed in the areas where smooth 
coneflower occurs. This USDOE site, designated as a National 
Environmental Research Park, is managed by the USFS. Several other 
populations are permanently protected on non-Federal lands by the 
VADNH, NCDACS, NCPCP, TNC, and Mecklenburg County (NC) Parks and 
Recreation Department.
    In response to impacts to populations of smooth coneflower in 
roadside and utility ROWs, State departments of transportation and 
utility companies, such as Duke Energy and Georgia Power, now have 
management agreements or memoranda of understanding with State wildlife 
agencies, State Natural Heritage Programs, the USFS, and other 
landowners to protect and manage smooth coneflower populations on their 
ROWs in a way that is protective of the species.
    While significant progress has been made to address the protection 
and management of many smooth coneflower populations, development 
pressure and management challenges associated with adjacent development 
continue to pose a threat to unprotected smooth coneflower populations. 
Populations that occur on private lands face threats from development 
and land conversion. Additionally, protected populations adjacent to 
private land can be difficult to manage with prescribed fire due to 
concerns of neighbors. Without proper management, woody vegetation 
could grow up and shade a smooth coneflower population to the point of 
causing decline or eradication in less than 10 years. Long-term 
management is still of concern to the Service, as several populations 
are not specifically considered in management plans nor have 
commitments to be managed into the future. Maintenance activities pose 
a threat to smooth coneflower populations that occur on roadside and 
utility ROWs. Despite agreements with State and Federal agencies to 
conduct ROW maintenance in a way that is protective of rare plants, 
accidents happen frequently. These sites are mowed or sprayed with 
herbicide on an irregular basis with varying levels of impacts.

[[Page 40107]]

Collection

    When we published the final rule to list smooth coneflower as an 
endangered species (57 FR 46340; October 8, 1992), there was concern 
that populations might be decimated by collectors interested in 
exploiting this species for the horticulture and pharmaceutical trades. 
We expected that publicity might generate increased demand for this 
species in the nursery trade. However, the final listing rule also 
mentioned that smooth coneflower, although offered for sale by a few 
native plant nurseries, was not a significant component of the 
commercial trade in native plants (57 FR 46340, October 8, 1992, p. 
46341). Currently, we are not aware of any plant nurseries that offer 
this species for sale, likely a result of the prohibitions on 
collecting endangered plants such as smooth coneflower. The only 
incidents of poaching known to the Service occurred at one site in GA. 
Flowers were broken off smooth coneflower plants at one of the roadside 
sites on Currahee Mountain, GA (Alley 2018, pers. comm.). While there 
is potential that specialty nurseries would be interested in selling 
this species in the future, the Service concludes that the demand for 
wild-collected plants is low, as other species in the genus Echinacea 
can be readily propagated using common horticultural techniques.
    The concern in the final rule (57 FR 46340; October 8, 1992) that 
this species would be collected for the pharmaceutical trade was based 
on observations of over-collection of other species of Echinacea in the 
midwestern United States for use in medicinal products. However, the 
rule also stated that ``devastation'' of smooth coneflower populations 
for the commercial pharmaceutical trade has not yet been documented (57 
FR 46340, October 8, 1992, p. 46342). Despite the concerns, in the 27 
years that smooth coneflower has been listed, the Service has not been 
aware of any incidents of poaching this species for use in medicinal 
products. Because plants in the genus Echinacea are still used for 
medicinal purposes, the threat of this activity remains, but the 
probability is low due to relatively small population sizes compared to 
other species in the genus Echinacea that grow in midwestern States. 
Moreover, land managers have not reported poaching as a significant 
threat to their smooth coneflower populations because other species of 
Echinacea are so much more numerous.
    Various types of academic research have been conducted on smooth 
coneflower since the species was listed in 1992. These studies involved 
the collection of leaves, stems, flowers, and seeds for laboratory 
experiments or the collection of voucher specimens for herbaria. The 
North Carolina Botanical Garden (NCBG), State Botanical Garden of 
Georgia, and Atlanta Botanical Garden have collected smooth coneflower 
seeds over the years to be used in restoration projects in their 
respective States. These botanical gardens follow the Center for Plant 
Conservation guidelines for seed collection and minimize impacts to 
populations, a protocol that is followed for all species, regardless of 
whether the species is federally listed or not (Kunz 2018, pers. 
comm.). We evaluated these projects before they were initiated and 
determined that the level of collection was unlikely to pose any 
potential threat of overutilization for the species. We do not find 
that any of these research or seed banking projects have had long-term 
negative effects on smooth coneflower. If the species were not listed, 
we do not anticipate a significant increase in collection pressure, 
given current lack of poaching and low interest in the species.
    We conclude that collection is not a major threat to the continued 
existence of smooth coneflower, as long as any future collection 
follows best conservation practices described in Menges et al. (2004, 
entire) and by the Center for Plant Conservation Best Practices.

Damage Due to Herbivory by Beetles and Deer

    When we listed smooth coneflower as an endangered species (57 FR 
46340; October 8, 1992), leaf beetles in the family Chrysomelidae had 
been observed on smooth coneflower in NC, but their effects were 
unknown. As mentioned in the 2011 5-year review, a nonnative longhorn 
beetle (Hemierana marginata; family Cerambycidae) was identified at 
some smooth coneflower populations in NC. This beetle chews into the 
flowering stem and causes flowers to die before producing viable seeds. 
While this longhorn beetle has been reported from a few smooth 
coneflower populations in two NC counties, healthy smooth coneflower 
populations remain at these sites. Therefore, we conclude that the 
nonnative longhorn beetle is not a threat at this time.
    White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have been documented 
browsing on the flower heads of smooth coneflower, but deer herbivory 
on the leaves has not been observed (Starke 2019, pers. comm.). No 
other herbivory has been observed. Based on the best available 
information at this time, we conclude that neither deer browsing nor 
any other herbivory is causing population-level effects to smooth 
coneflower.

State Regulatory Protections

    Smooth coneflower is listed as ``State Endangered'' by the GADNR. 
The relevant State law (Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, 
Subject 391-4-10, Protection of Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or 
Unusual Species) prohibits, among other things, the transfer of a 
State-listed plant from one property to another without the written 
permission of the landowner where the species was found. Violations of 
this law constitute a misdemeanor. In addition, the Georgia 
Environmental Policy Act (GA Code, title 12, chapter 16, article 1) 
requires the assessment of major proposed agency impacts on biological 
resources. Georgia's Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973 (GA Code, 
title 12, chapter 6, article 3) protects rare plants. However, the 
Georgia Wildflower Preservation Act does not protect plants on private 
property. Regardless, nearly all known smooth coneflower populations in 
GA occur on Federal lands such as the Chattahoochee-Oconee National 
Forest and DOD (Department of the Army) installations such as Fort 
Stewart (Moffett 2018, pers. comm.). As discussed above (see Habitat 
Degradation or Loss Due to Development and Absence of Natural 
Disturbance), Federal lands provide some protection to smooth 
coneflower populations by limiting public access and reducing the 
threat of development, as well as ensuring agency-specific management 
plans.
    Smooth coneflower is listed as ``endangered'' in NC by the NCPCP 
and protected by the Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 (NC 
General Statutes, chapter 106, article 19B). This law prevents the 
removal of State-listed plants from the land without written permission 
of the landowner. However, it does not regulate destruction or mandate 
protection. It authorizes the NCPCP to establish nature preserves for 
protected species and their habitats. To that end, the NCPCP owns and 
manages several tracts of land as preserves for the protection of 
smooth coneflower and other associated rare plants.
    The Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act (Code of 
Virginia, title 3.2, chapter 10), as amended, provides for the official 
listing and recovery of endangered and threatened plant and insect 
species in VA. The VADNH lists smooth coneflower as ``threatened'' in 
the State (VA Administrative Code, title 2, agency 5,

[[Page 40108]]

chapter 320, section 5-320-10 (2VAC5-320-10); Townsend 2018, p. 16). 
Virginia law prohibits the removal and sale or gifting of State-listed 
plant species from land other than a person's own land. The VADCR owns 
three natural area preserves that protect populations of smooth 
coneflower. The Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act has 
not played a major role in safeguarding smooth coneflower populations 
(Townsend 2019, pers. comm.).
    Smooth coneflower is on the South Carolina Department of Natural 
Resources' list of rare, threatened, and endangered species of SC 
(SCHTP 2018, unpaginated); however, neither the law that authorizes the 
creation of this list, nor any other State law, provides general 
protection to listed plants in SC.
    Populations of smooth coneflower are more abundant and widely 
distributed than when it was listed as an endangered species in 1992. 
It is also listed as endangered or threatened by three of the four 
States where it occurs (GA, NC, and VA). However, protection of this 
and other State-listed species on private land is challenging. State 
prohibitions against taking are difficult to enforce and do not cover 
adverse alterations of habitats such as exclusion of fire. As 
previously mentioned in this rule, the majority of the highest ranked 
populations (Ranks A, AB, and B) occur on protected Federal lands and 
other conservation properties.

Genetics

    The final rule listing smooth coneflower as an endangered species 
(57 FR 46340; October 8, 1992) stated that, at that time, the remaining 
smooth coneflower populations contained few individual plants and there 
may have been low genetic variability within populations, making each 
remaining population important. However, we now know that smooth 
coneflower displays a relatively high level of diversity (Peters et al. 
2009, entire). Thus, populations may be able to respond to selection 
pressures due to continued genetic exchange sustained by the 
outcrossing mating system of the species.

Encroachment From Invasive Species

    Encroachment by nonnative, invasive plants poses a threat to some 
smooth coneflower populations, especially those occurrences located on 
highway ROWs or in utility line easements (such as power lines). These 
disturbed habitats often include nonnative species, some of which can 
become invasive. Invasive species change the floristic composition of 
these areas, compete for nutrients, limit germination of seeds (by 
changing or eliminating that niche/microenvironment), and may shade out 
smooth coneflower plants. Another impact is the use of herbicides on 
invasive species that has the secondary effect of killing smooth 
coneflower. Smooth coneflower populations face threats by nonnative, 
invasive plants such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), 
Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), shrubby lespedeza (Lespedeza 
bicolor), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), and autumn olive 
(Elaeagnus umbellata) (White 2019, entire).

Climate Change

    Based on observations of climatic conditions over a period of 
approximately 20 years, there is some biological and historical 
evidence to indicate that smooth coneflower is adapted to persist with 
the range of potential effects of climate change, including more 
frequent droughts (below average rainfall over a time period greater 
than the historical range of variability) and increased average maximum 
temperatures. Smooth coneflower is typically found in open, sunny areas 
with little to no shade and high sun exposure. These sites often occur 
in fairly xeric conditions such as open woods, glades, barrens, 
roadsides, clear cuts, dry limestone bluffs, and road and power line 
ROWs. Even though smooth coneflower populations in NC experienced 
severe droughts in 2007 and 2010, dry conditions did not negatively 
influence flower production (NCPCP 2018, entire). All natural 
populations in NC have survived through drought years and recovered. 
Despite some drought years, smooth coneflower populations in SC have 
generally experienced positive trends over the last 20 years, 
indicating that the species is not negatively affected by droughts 
(White 2018, entire). Smooth coneflower plants have sustained 
populations for years on dry clay road cuts (White 2019, pers. comm.). 
Adaptations to survive in sunny areas likely benefit this species 
during drought conditions. Further, the perennial growth habitat and 
underground rhizomes likely allow smooth coneflower to be more 
resilient to drought conditions.
    To generate future climate projections across the range of smooth 
coneflower, we used the National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV), a tool 
developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that allows the user to 
view climate projections at the State, county, and watershed level 
(Alder and Hostetler 2017, entire). The model simulates the response of 
the water balance to changes in temperature and precipitation in the 
climate models (30 separate models developed by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration). The NCCV also provides access to 
comprehensive summary reports for States, counties, and watersheds.
    Using the NCCV and using representative concentration pathways 
(RCP) greenhouse gas emission scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5) as possible 
outcomes, we calculated projected annual mean changes for maximum air 
temperature and precipitation for the period 2050-2074 in VA, NC, SC, 
and GA. Based on these results, all four States within the range of 
smooth coneflower will be subjected to higher maximum air temperatures 
(annual mean increase of 1.9-2.2 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (3.4-4.0 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) for RCP 4.5; 2.7-3.2 [deg]C (4.9-5.8 
[deg]F) for RCP 8.5) and slightly higher precipitation (annual mean 
increase of 0.57-0.74 centimeters (cm)/month (mo) (0.22-0.3 inches 
(in)/mo) for RCP 4.5; 0.51-0.76 cm/mo (0.2-0.3 in/mo) for RCP 8.5) 
relative to 1981-2010 (Alder and Hostetler 2017, entire). In general, 
across the species' range for both RCP 4.5 and 8.5, runoff is expected 
to remain at a similar levels or decrease slightly; soil water storage 
is expected to decrease slightly, and evaporative deficit will increase 
slightly (Alder and Hostetler 2017, entire). Because the average annual 
increase in precipitation is predicted to be only slightly higher, the 
increased evaporative deficit and the loss in runoff and soil storage 
is primarily a result of higher maximum and minimum air temperatures. 
Despite the slight increase in predicted precipitation, the coincident 
warming means that habitats are unlikely to maintain their current 
levels of moisture and will become slightly drier.
    To evaluate the vulnerability of smooth coneflower to the effects 
of climate change, we also used NatureServe's Climate Change 
Vulnerability Index (CCVI) (Young et al. 2015, entire), a climate 
change model that uses downscaled climate predictions from tools such 
as Climate Wizard (Girvetz et al. 2009, entire) and combines these with 
readily available information about a species' natural history, 
distribution, and landscape circumstances to predict whether it will 
likely suffer a range contraction and/or population reductions due to 
the effects of climate change. The tool gauges 20 scientifically 
documented factors and indicators of these components, as well as 
documented responses to climate change where they exist. The CCVI

[[Page 40109]]

generated a vulnerability rating of ``moderately vulnerable'' for 
smooth coneflower, suggesting that the species' abundance and/or range 
extent is likely to decrease slightly by 2050. Factors influencing the 
species' moderate vulnerability include its restricted dispersal 
ability, anthropogenic barriers, predicted land use changes, dependence 
on a specific disturbance regime (often fire), and restriction to 
uncommon geological features.
    Although the model suggested that smooth coneflower is sensitive to 
climate change and could be adversely affected in future years, there 
are a number of weaknesses associated with the CCVI (Anacker and 
Leidholm 2012, pp. 16-17). The specific weaknesses identified are: (1) 
The CCVI is weighted too heavily towards direct exposure to climate 
change (projected changes to future temperature and precipitation 
conditions that have high levels of uncertainties); (2) some important 
plant attributes are missing (mating system and pollinator 
specificity); (3) it is very difficult to complete scoring for a given 
species because some information is simply lacking; (4) some scoring 
guidelines are too simplistic (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, pp. 16-17); 
and (5) the model does not account for impacts to species' vital rates.
    Topographic complexity is a potential complementary factor in 
assessing vulnerability to climate change (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, 
pp. 12-16). Within smooth coneflower's range, the Appalachian and 
Allegheny mountains are predicted to have slightly higher temperature 
changes as a result of climate change than the piedmont and coastal 
plain counties, so smooth coneflower populations in the mountains on 
the north end of the range may be more vulnerable when compared to 
those that occur, for example, in the coastal plain.
    In summary, while smooth coneflower is considered moderately 
vulnerable to range contraction from future climate change, the 
predicted temperature and precipitation changes for both moderate (RCP 
4.5) and extreme (RCP 8.5) scenarios indicate only slightly hotter and 
drier conditions by 2074. Thus, smooth coneflower is expected to have 
little to no change for any populations due to drought or temperature 
changes that are predicted for the future. Therefore, we conclude that 
climate change is not likely a major factor affecting the species' 
resiliency into the foreseeable future.

Stochastic Events

    Stochastic events (environmental and genetic stochasticity) do not 
appear to be adversely affecting populations of smooth coneflower. 
Environmental stochasticity refers to variation in recruitment and 
mortality rates in response to weather, disease, competition, 
predation, or other factors external to the population. While drought 
and the timing and amount of rainfall are likely important factors in 
seed germination and establishment of smooth coneflower, we do not have 
any evidence of how these factors directly affect this species. Smooth 
coneflower soil seed banks are low to nonexistent, which could 
exacerbate the potential effects of stochastic events because the 
species does not have the seed bank to rely on for future recruitment 
(Walker 2009, p. 12); however, we have not yet observed that the low 
seedbank has affected highly resilient populations. With regard to 
genetic stochasticity, smooth coneflower populations have significant 
levels of population diversity and exhibit substantial population 
genetic differentiation (Peters et al. 2009, p. 12) (see Genetics, 
above), as such any genetic stochasticity such as allee effects or 
genetic bottlenecks are not likely. Based on the best available 
information, we conclude that environmental and genetic stochasticity 
do not pose a threat to smooth coneflower.

Cumulative Effects

    The cumulative effects of encroaching development adjacent to 
protected sites and the management challenges that accompany that 
threat will continue to affect the species into the future. Increasing 
development adjacent to protected sites will likely lead to decreases 
in managing with prescribed burning in the future, which may or may not 
be replaced with adequate and appropriate habitat management by other 
means that are more expensive than managing with fire. The type of 
development also factors into management ability and flexibility, with 
major roads and places with vulnerable populations weighing more 
heavily on the decision of if/when to burn than other types of 
development.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on June 24, 2021 (86 FR 33159), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by August 23, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A 
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in the 
public notice section of USA Today on July 12, 2021. We did not receive 
any requests for a public hearing. We received four public comments, 
primarily in support of our proposed downlisting of smooth coneflower, 
during the proposed rule's public comment period, but none raised 
issues substantial enough to change our conclusions from the proposed 
rule.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we sought peer review of the proposed 
reclassification rule. The Service sent the proposed rule to four 
independent peer reviewers who had expertise in smooth coneflower 
ecology and the threats to its habitat. 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 information 
contained in the proposed reclassification rule. The peer reviewers 
generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided 
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the 
final rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following 
summary and were incorporated into this final rule, as appropriate.
    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that the studies we cited 
for information on reproductive biology seem to conflict, stating that 
while one cited study includes butterflies as pollinators, another more 
correctly identifies butterflies as visitors collecting nectar, not as 
effective pollinators.
    Our Response: These two statements in the proposed rule were 
somewhat confusing. Based on the literature cited, skippers, 
butterflies, and wasps are frequent floral visitors; however, bees are 
believed to be the most effective pollinators (Gadd 2006, p. 15; 
Collins and Fore 2009, pp. 452-454). We have made minor edits to this 
final rule to clarify this distinction.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we provide reference 
to best management practices for the downlisting/delisting criterion 4 
(management plans implemented). They also suggested that we comment on 
where outdated management plans fall short of current knowledge (e.g., 
updated fire frequency, timing, etc.).

[[Page 40110]]

    Our Response: In the proposed rule and this final rule, we include 
best management practices where we indicate that smooth coneflowers 
require early to mid-successional habitat provided via management 
techniques that include the use of prescribed fire on 3- to 5-year 
rotations, or well-timed mowing or mechanical clearing, and the control 
of invasive species with herbicides selectively applied to cut stumps 
to prevent growth. We assert that maintaining open habitat (through 
prescribed fire or mechanical clearing) and invasive species control 
are important management practices that are critical to the long-term 
survival of smooth coneflower and have included reference to these 
practices in this final rule. We also note that the Service is working 
with land managers to update management plans by providing a template 
as a guide including how to best manage smooth coneflower with fire and 
for invasive species, which will help improve the seven generic 
management plans and the six outdated management plans mentioned above 
in Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 4 (Management plans implemented).
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that our conclusion regarding 
collection threat has some flaws, noting that the proposed rule 
indicated that the incidence of collection was limited and the Service 
indicated that the collection that did take place was conducted using 
very conservative practices. The peer reviewer suggested that the 
conclusion should be revised to state that overcollection is not a 
major threat as long as any future collection follows best conservation 
practices.
    Our Response: Limited collection of smooth coneflower has occurred 
over time, but has been minimal in scope and not been a major threat to 
the species. Any future collection efforts should follow best 
conservation practices, as described in Menges et al. (2004) and by 
Center for Plant Conservation Best Practices. We noted in the proposed 
rule and reiterate in this final rule that overcollection has not been 
documented for the species (see Collection, above).
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the climate models we 
used do not account for impacts to the species' vital rates (i.e., 
changes in survivorship/mortality, fecundity). The peer reviewer 
indicated that vital rates can be broadly used to look at range 
contraction but have long been used with metrics like population 
viability analyses to determine persistence/threat of individual sites/
populations. However, the peer reviewer agreed that based on the 
information in the proposed reclassification, smooth coneflower should 
have little changes at individual populations due to drought and 
temperature changes under predicted climate change.
    Our Response: The climate change models we used do not account for 
impacts to the species' vital rates. However, given that smooth 
coneflower is tolerant of increased temperatures and drought, we have 
determined that climate change is not likely a major factor affecting 
the species' resiliency into the foreseeable future.

Determination of Smooth Coneflower's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as a species 
that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered species 
or threatened species because of any of the following 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.
    As also described above, the term ``foreseeable future'' extends 
only so far into the future as the Service can reasonably determine 
that both the future threats and the species' responses to those 
threats are likely. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors. Where we had data over longer time frames, 
we analyzed those data (e.g., climate data); however, for the factors 
most influential in affecting the status of the smooth coneflower, such 
as development and succession due to lack of adequate management, we 
could only reliably predict the magnitude of the primary threats and 
the subsequent effects on smooth coneflower over a time frame of 20 to 
30 years. Therefore, we consider the foreseeable future to be 20-30 . 
Threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the 
foreseeable future include habitat loss due to development pressure on 
private lands and habitat succession due to lack of adequate management 
(see Habitat Degradation or Loss Due to Development and Absence of 
Natural Disturbance, above), including fire suppression near or on 
private lands and accidental mowing and herbicide application from 
roadside maintenance activities. Thus, all populations of smooth 
coneflower that are not actively managed or formally protected remain 
at risk of extirpation in the future. The 20-30 year period reflects 
the range from the time when the species was listed (1992) to the 
present (30 years), and provides a timeframe of reference observations 
that enables the Service to predict future management scenarios for the 
species and the species' response to threats and management actions. 
This prior experience indicates that a 20 to 30 year timeframe is the 
expected period over which implementation of management practices (such 
as prescribed fire) by conservation partners and tracking of the 
species' response to managed habitat improvement is reliable. Further, 
this time period coincides with the SLEUTH urban growth models, 
allowing us to make reliable predictions with respect to the threat of 
development. For formally protected populations, we expect management 
of the threat of fire suppression to continue as part of ongoing 
management well into the future. Therefore, we used the 20- to 30-year 
timeframe in developing our projections of future conditions for smooth 
coneflower.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we find that smooth coneflower continues to face threats from 
habitat succession (resulting from lack of fire or other management), 
particularly in areas where development is increasing near existing 
populations, thus making fire management difficult. In addition, 
development pressure, especially for unprotected populations on private 
lands, remains a concern. We are concerned about long-term management 
because several populations do not have management plans or the 
management plans no longer reflect the best available science. Even 
populations occurring on protected land adjacent to private lands are 
becoming increasingly more difficult to manage due to neighbors' 
concerns about nearby fires and smoke pollution. Even with agreements 
in place to protect them, populations in roadside

[[Page 40111]]

and utility ROWs still face threats from maintenance activities, 
especially herbicide spraying and mowing. The decline or disappearance 
of some smooth coneflower populations across the range of the species 
has been documented in Natural Heritage Program records and is 
attributed to habitat loss. Habitat loss (Factor A) is considered to be 
a moderate threat currently and is expected to continue in the 
foreseeable future.
    At the time of listing in 1992, there was concern that smooth 
coneflower plants would be collected for the horticulture or 
pharmaceutical trade (Factor B). However, we do not find that 
collecting is currently a threat to this species or is expected to be 
in the foreseeable future.
    Disease and predation (Factor C) were not identified as a 
significant threat to smooth coneflower when the species was listed in 
1992. Natural herbivory by insects and mammals may occur, but it is a 
considered a low-magnitude threat because the species has sustained 
populations and there is no indication that the magnitude of an 
undetermined natural predation pressure significantly affects smooth 
coneflower survival. We find that disease and predation are not 
currently threats to this species, and we do not expect them to be 
threats in the foreseeable future.
    The existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are not adequate to 
protect smooth coneflower from development and habitat succession. 
Populations of smooth coneflower on USFS, DOD, and USDOE lands receive 
some protection by management protocols applicable to those lands. 
Furthermore, some populations in NC, SC, and VA occur on State-owned 
lands managed by their respective Natural Heritage Programs or the 
NCDACS as ``dedicated nature preserves.'' However, while NC, GA, and VA 
have plant protection laws, they only regulate the collection and trade 
of listed species and do not prohibit the destruction of populations on 
private lands or otherwise mandate protection. There is no State law 
protecting rare plants in SC.
    Other natural and manmade factors affecting the continued existence 
(Factor E) of smooth coneflower identified at the time of listing 
(1992) include low genetic variability within populations, encroachment 
by exotic species, herbicide use, and the importance of periodic 
disturbance (addressed above under Factor A). Since listing, climate 
change is another factor that has been identified. Of these threats, 
encroachment by exotic (invasive) species and use of herbicides to 
manage those exotic species continue to be a threat to smooth 
coneflower populations. New information since the time of listing 
indicates that smooth coneflower displays a relatively high level of 
diversity and that populations may be able to respond to selection 
pressures and maintain viability due to continued genetic exchange 
sustained by the outcrossing mating system of the species. Based on the 
number, distribution, and genetic diversity of the species, we conclude 
that potential impacts associated with stochastic events are not a 
threat to smooth coneflower. Despite our uncertainty about the species' 
vulnerability to climate change, we do not consider climate change to 
be a threat to smooth coneflower based on the current resiliency of the 
species and its demonstrated tolerance to periods of drought.
    Further, since the species' 1992 listing under the Act, new smooth 
coneflower occurrences have been discovered throughout the range of the 
species, especially with the new sites in the coastal plain of GA and 
SC. Our understanding of the species' distribution has improved as a 
result of increased survey efforts; the species is now known from 44 
populations (up from 21 populations at the time of listing), 16 of 
which currently have high to medium resiliency. The species' geographic 
representation is good, given the distribution of highly resilient 
populations over a four-State area. We believe that this improvement in 
the species' viability demonstrates that it is not currently in danger 
of extinction throughout its range despite the persistence of the 
above-described threats.
    In conclusion, based on our assessment of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we find that while smooth 
coneflower populations continue to face threats from habitat loss and 
invasive species, and existing regulatory mechanisms are currently 
inadequate to protect some smooth coneflower populations from 
development and habitat succession, there are currently 16 protected, 
high resiliency smooth coneflower populations and a total of 44 
populations, up from 21 populations at the time of listing. Therefore, 
the species no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered 
species.
    We, therefore, proceed with determining whether smooth coneflower 
meets the Act's definition of a threatened species. The ongoing threats 
of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, habitat succession, and 
encroachment of nonnative and invasive species are of sufficient 
imminence, scope, or magnitude to affect the resiliency of smooth 
coneflower populations for the foreseeable future. The species relies 
on management such as prescribed fire and mechanical clearing to 
maintain its habitat. However, management plans for most of the areas 
in which the species is protected are outdated, and it is uncertain how 
those plans will continue to be implemented. Threatened development 
near protected sites could impede management of those sites with fire. 
Adequate management commitments would need to be secured for more 
populations before the species could be delisted. Thus, after assessing 
the best available information, we conclude that although smooth 
coneflower is not currently in danger of extinction, but it is likely 
to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable throughout all 
of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Center for Biological 
Diversity), vacated the aspect of our 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) that provided that the Service 
does not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species' 
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of 
its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is 
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether 
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the 
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction 
in that portion.
    Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address 
the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can 
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question 
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the 
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other 
question for that portion of the species' range. In undertaking this 
analysis for smooth coneflower, we choose to address the status 
question first--we consider information pertaining to the geographic 
distribution of both the species and the threats that the species faces 
to identify

[[Page 40112]]

any portions of the range where the species is endangered.
    For smooth coneflower, we considered whether the threats are 
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a 
biologically meaningful scale, which may indicate this portion could 
have a different status. We examined the threats of habitat succession, 
habitat loss, and invasive species, as well as the cumulative effects 
of these threats, and considered whether management actions were being 
implemented. Smooth coneflower populations on private lands throughout 
the range face the threat of development and are not being managed with 
prescribed fire. However, while the development threat is concentrated 
near already urbanizing areas, most coneflower populations near those 
areas are protected in preserves. The decline or disappearance of some 
smooth coneflower populations across the range of the species has been 
documented in Natural Heritage Program records and is attributed to 
habitat loss, primarily due to lack of proper management. There is no 
indication that management is more or less likely to be implemented in 
any particular area within the range; thus, no specific population 
appears to be more subject to stochastic events than others. Further, 
encroachment by invasive species, which is most prevalent in disturbed 
areas, such as highway ROWs or utility corridors, occurs throughout the 
smooth coneflower's range. Accordingly, we found no concentration of 
threats in any portion of the smooth coneflower's range at a 
biologically meaningful scale. Thus, there are no portions of the 
species' range where the species has a different status from its 
rangewide status. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to determine 
whether any portion of the species' range is significant. This is 
consistent with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department 
of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 
24, 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 
3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that smooth coneflower meets the Act's definition 
of a threatened species. Therefore, we are reclassifying smooth 
coneflower from an endangered species to a threatened species in 
accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

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. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires 
that recovery actions be implemented for all listed species. The 
protections 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. As discussed earlier in this document, section 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 ecosystem.
    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 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. All planning documents can 
be found on our website (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species).
    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, 
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 (like TNC preserves and county-owned nature preserves). 
To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation 
efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands where appropriate. Funding 
for recovery actions could become available from a variety of sources, 
including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants from 
non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental 
organizations. We invite you to submit any new information on this 
species whenever it becomes available (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions 
with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or 
threatened species. 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 the species. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species, 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 USFS; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the USACE; and construction and 
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
    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. The discussion below regarding protective regulations under 
section 4(d) of the Act complies with our policy.

II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act

    The Act allows the Secretary to promulgate protective regulations 
for threatened species pursuant to section 4(d). Because we are 
reclassifying this species as a threatened species, the prohibitions in 
section 9 would not apply directly. We are, therefore, enacting a set 
of regulations to provide for the conservation of the species in 
accordance with section 4(d) of Act,

[[Page 40113]]

which also authorizes us to apply any of the prohibitions in section 9 
to a threatened species. The rule includes a description of the kinds 
of activities that would or would not constitute a violation.

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species 
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory 
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree 
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)). 
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence 
of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation 
prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited 
under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 
9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Thus, the combination of the two 
sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary with wide latitude of 
discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored to 
the specific conservation needs of the threatened species. The second 
sentence grants particularly broad discretion to the Service when 
adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules 
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority 
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife or include a limited 
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council 
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. 
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address 
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when 
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened 
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available 
to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species. 
[She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such 
species, or [she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation but 
allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd 
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule

    Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, 
we have developed a rule that is designed to address the smooth 
coneflower's specific threats and conservation needs. Although the 
statute does not require the Service to make a ``necessary and 
advisable'' finding with respect to the adoption of specific 
prohibitions under section 9, we find that this rule as a whole 
satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue 
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of smooth coneflower.
    As discussed above under Summary of Biological Condition and 
Threats, we have concluded that smooth coneflower is likely to become 
in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to 
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat or range (specifically due to fire suppression and 
subsequent ecological succession and development, and encroachment from 
invasive species). Specifically, a number of activities have the 
potential to affect smooth coneflower, including land clearing for 
development, fire suppression, and herbicide application to highway and 
utility ROWs. Extending the Act's section 9 prohibitions for plants, 
including making it unlawful to remove, damage, or destroy smooth 
coneflowers, will provide for conservation of the species by helping to 
preserve remaining populations, slowing their rate of potential 
decline, and decreasing synergistic, negative effects from other 
stressors. Prohibiting import and export, transportation, and commerce 
of smooth coneflower limits unauthorized propagation and distribution, 
which prevents potential hybridization with other species of Echinacea 
and subsequent inbreeding depression. As a whole, the 4(d) rule helps 
in the efforts to recover the species.
    The provisions of this 4(d) rule promote conservation of smooth 
coneflower by encouraging management of the landscape in ways that meet 
both land management considerations and the conservation needs of 
smooth coneflower, specifically by providing exceptions for State 
agency conservation actions, scientific permits for research, and use 
of cultivated-origin seeds for education. The provisions of this rule 
are one of many tools that we will use to promote the conservation of 
smooth coneflower.
    This 4(d) rule provides for the conservation of smooth coneflower 
by extending the prohibitions of section 9(a)(2), prohibiting the 
following activities, except as otherwise authorized or permitted: 
Import or export; removing and reducing to possession smooth coneflower 
from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damaging or 
destroying the species on any area under Federal jurisdiction; 
removing, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying the species on 
any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any 
State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass 
law; delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping the 
species in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial 
activity; and selling or offering for sale the species in interstate or 
foreign commerce.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities, 
including those described above, involving threatened plants under 
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 
CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened plants, a permit may be issued for 
the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation 
or survival, for economic hardship, for botanical or horticultural 
exhibition, for educational purposes, or for other activities 
consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act. Additional 
statutory exemptions from the prohibitions are found in sections 9 and 
10 of the Act.
    We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State 
natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of 
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and 
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, 
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State 
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working 
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique 
position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this 
regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we shall cooperate to the 
maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs 
authorized by the Act. Therefore, as set forth at 50 CFR 17.71(b), any 
employee or agent of the Service or of a State conservation agency that 
is operating a conservation program pursuant to the terms of a 
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) 
of the

[[Page 40114]]

Act, who is designated by that agency for such purposes, will be 
allowed, when acting in the course of official duties, to remove and 
reduce to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction smooth 
coneflowers that are covered by an approved cooperative agreement to 
carry out conservation programs. In addition, in accordance with 50 CFR 
17.61(c)(2) through (4), any employee or agent of the Service, any 
other Federal land management agency, or a State conservation agency, 
who is designated by that agency for such purposes, will be able to, 
when acting in the course of official duties, remove and reduce to 
possession smooth coneflower from areas under Federal jurisdiction 
without a permit to care for a damaged or diseased specimen, or to 
salvage or dispose of a dead specimen.
    We also recognize the beneficial and educational aspects of 
activities with seeds of cultivated plants, which generally enhance the 
propagation of the species. We intend to monitor the interstate and 
foreign commerce and the import and export of these specimens in a 
manner that will not inhibit such activities, providing the activities 
do not represent a threat to the survival of the species in the wild. 
In this regard, we have created an exception from the prohibitions for 
seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a statement that the seeds 
are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the seeds or their container 
(e.g., the seeds could be moved across State lines or between 
territories for purposes of seed banking or use for outplanting without 
additional regulations).
    Nothing in this 4(d) rule changes in any way the recovery planning 
provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation requirements 
under section 7 of the Act, or our ability to enter into partnerships 
for the management and protection of smooth coneflower. However, 
interagency cooperation may be further streamlined through planned 
programmatic consultations for the species between us and other Federal 
agencies, where appropriate.

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 
determining and implementing a species' listing status 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).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. We have determined that there are no 
Tribal interests affected by this rule.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the Fish 
and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Raleigh 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

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, in paragraph (h), by revising the entry for 
``Echinacea laevigata'' under FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of 
Endangered and Threatened 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
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Echinacea laevigata.............  Smooth coneflower..  Wherever found....            T   57 FR 46340, 10/8/1992;
                                                                                          87 FR [insert Federal
                                                                                          Register page where
                                                                                          the document begins],
                                                                                          7/6/2022; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.73(f).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.73 by adding paragraphs (c) through (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.73  Special rules--flowering plants.

* * * * *
    (c)-(e) [Reserved]
    (f) Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower)--(1) Prohibitions. The 
following prohibitions that apply to endangered plants also apply to 
Echinacea laevigata. Except as provided under paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another 
to commit, or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in 
regard to this species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(b) for endangered 
plants.
    (ii) Remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal 
jurisdiction, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(c)(1) for endangered plants.

[[Page 40115]]

    (iii) Maliciously damage or destroy the species on any areas under 
Federal jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy the 
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, as set forth at section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
    (iv) Engage in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of 
commercial activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(d) for endangered 
plants.
    (v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(e) for 
endangered plants.
    (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to Echinacea laevigata, 
you may:
    (i) Conduct activities, including activities prohibited under 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, if they are authorized by a permit 
issued in accordance with the provisions set forth at Sec.  17.72.
    (ii) Conduct activities authorized by a permit issued under Sec.  
17.62 prior to August 5, 2022 for the duration of the permit.
    (iii) Remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal 
jurisdiction, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(c)(2) through (4) for 
endangered plants and Sec.  17.71(b).
    (iv) Engage in any act prohibited under paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section with seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a statement 
that the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the seeds or 
their container.

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-14291 Filed 7-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P