USDA Forest Seruice General Technical Report S E-I I 

Conference on Endangered P 

in the Southeast 

PROCEED 

Betula uber 

March 1977 

May 11- 13, 

Asheville, North Caro 

Forest Seruice - U. S. Department of Agriculture 

Sou theastern Forest Experiment Stat ion 

Asheuille, North Carolina 

Conference on Endangered Plants 

in the Southeast 

PROCEEDINGS 

May 11- 13, 1976 

Asheville, North Carolina 

Sponsored by 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station 

USDA Forest Service 

University of North Carolina -Asheville 
Citation: 

USaA Forest Service 

1977. Conference on endangered plants in the southeast proceedings. 

USnA For. Sew. Gen, Tech, Rep. SE-11, 104 PO Southeast. For. 

Exp, Stn,, Asheville, N. C. 
BMECTIVES OF THE 68NFEEMCE .................... James D, Perq 

DEFINITION AYD CUSSIFICATZOM OF ENDANGEBD ar.liD 

TENED PUNT SPECIES (I) ................. James F. Nadthews 

DEFINITION AND CUSSIPICATION OF ENBANGEWE) AND 

ATENED PUW SPECIES (11) ................. Thomas M. fillen 

A WVIEW OF Tm EWDANGEWD SPECIES ACT OF I973 ........... James D, WJ1Li;azns and Gail S, Baker 

TE ENDARGEMD AND T ATENED PUm PROG 

U,S, FISM AND WILDLIFE SewecE ................ Gail S, Baker and Bruce mcBryde ............... 

PEBEML AND STATE PRW ON ENMHGEWB PUNTS .......... FranZ;; B. Barick 

EXPLOITATION OF ENITDANGEmD PUNTS AHD THEIR MBLTATS ........ Jerv McCollum 

R0U OF FISH Am WILDLIFE SERVICE CB%a@EBS;IIMG 

ENWNGEMD FWM ....................... Vernon 6, Henq 

A 60mWkT APPROACH TO THE PROTECTION OF ENMNGEmD SPECIES .... Charles M. Parrish IIE 

Tm STATE HATURBL BERLTAGE PRW ................ Robert M. Chipley 

NAWUL AWAS IN "XI AAPPAUCHIAN SECTSOM UGISTEWD WITR 

"li" SSCSICXEW OF RECAN PBMSTERS ............... Keith A, Argow 

NING DISTRIBUTION, ..................... Roy 8, Clarkssn 
a-APREmSSmPORT . . . , . , . , , 75 

Robert Kra% 

ENBANGEmD SPECIES - QUESTIONS OF SCIENCE* ETM96S AKD UW e r m s s 81 

J, Frank McCormick 

SPECIES BIOLWY: DEFINITION, DIWCTIOM, DATA AMD 

DECZSIBMS~~coea~eo*~e~mrs~~ro~88 

J, R, Massey and Paul D, Whitson 

NAWI"bPIL AmA CUSSIElCATfON SPS"SlH: A STANDASDIZATION 

SCBm e~~o~~~~~e+~e~a~95 

Albert E, Radford 

COWEmNGE OM ENDANGEWD BUmS EN THE SOUTHEAST . . . . . . . . . . 102 

6, R, Naggle 
OBJECTIVES OF THE CO4P9%I?ERENGE 

11 James D, PerryIt is obvious from the program that this conference is not an attempt 

to derive another list of plants which are endangered in one way or another. 

Rather, it is an effort to arrive at some ways of standardizing our screening 

procedures and research priorities. It is generally agreed that we must 

strength- and broaden our knowledge of plant di~tpibutisns~ sf habitat 

preferences, of population dynamics, and of species biology in general. 

Although we all have some built-in notion of what species are rare or 

endangered in our areas, we need so-me workable definitions to use in 

elassifyiag these, and the first tvvo papers coneern this. 

Subsequent papers explore federal and state legislation affecting our 

actions and the question of propagation and c ornrnercial exploitation of 

endangered plants, such as the Venus' fly-trap. 

In the second session, five papers concern preservation sf sufficient 

suitable habitat--natural areas or even whole communities--and on what 

bases such areas may be considered worthy of preservation. The remaining papers present research needs, dealizrg with what botanists should do 

to expand knowledge of specizs biology and distribution. This is a pressing 

need of professional foresters and othzrs who manage public Lands. In 

order to manage public lands in such a way as to preserve areas critical 

to given species, field personnel need to know what these species are and 

what their requirements are. In addition, field personnel may lack the 

time or training to identigy plants limited in distribution, An efficient 

means of inventory, storage, and retrieval of inforrnati~n is needed, 

Some of the questions we must face, and hopefully reach some consensus 

about, are: I) How rnay we categorize endangered species in a realistic and 

consistent way from state to state so future legislaticn will have teeth in it? 

2) What are the best ways to preserve rare, endangered, and endemic 

species? 3) What research approaches do we need in order to establish 

priorities as time runs out 3 

This conference was also enliisionrd as a means of communicating, so 

that we from various states can find out what those in other states are doing 

and the different problems being faced. 

L' Chairman, Departnlent of Biology, University of North Carolina at Asheville. 
DEFINITION mD CLASSIFICATION OF EMDMGERED 

I4ND "rNREATENETr PLmT SPECIES 

James F, ~atthews' 

Abstract -- Definitions and categories of classification 

for endangered and threatened vascular plants, as determined 

by the N,C. Endangered and Threatened Piant Committee, are detailed, along with the philosophical guidelines used in producing a primary list of rare species and a secondary list of 

endangered and threatened peripheral species. 

The definition and classification of endangered and threatened species 

is the heart oS any successful effort in conservation and protection. Everyone interested in endangered and threatened species has probably been 

frustrated by plans, programs, definitions and lists which often complicate the situation rather than improve it. Me of the North Carolina Endangered and Threatened Plant Cornittee (The Committee is listed at the 

end of this paper.) have felt this same frustration, aile meeting to 

prepare a report for a state-wide Symposium on Endangered and Threatened 

Biota in November 1975, we decided to make some decisions, right or wrong, 

to initiate positive action toward conservation and protection. 

We had to analyze those species to be included, define the categories 

and evaluate the current status of each species a91 in the context of the 

long range process of conservation, The full text of that Symposium is 

being published by the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Wistory and 

will be available through the Museum, 

What I want to do today is to discuss some of the definitions and categories, and to give some of the philosophical concepts used in reaching 

decisions. First, it is important to recognize that each state cannot independently develop a list of endangered and threatened species now that 

the Federal Government has published a list through the Smithsonian Tnstitution (1974) and through the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife 

Service (1975). Every state list should be so carefully compiled that it 

would stand up in court, as it will be tested in the halls of the State 

Legislature. Inclusion of all the popular wildfEowers produces a list that 

cannot be defended, ends up being riddled, thus losing its veracity. How 

do you defend the query ""Bt the Federal List has only 88 species for our 

state and yours has 328, why the discrepancy?" Me were comitted to generating a defendable primary list of species, realizing that many of the 

showy, dramatic, and peripheral species would be omitted, Because of this, 

we also developed a secondary list of endangered and threatened peripheral 

species, Developing different lists with the possibility of various levels 

of concern dictates different laws to govern each category, an aspect that 

will be discussed in a later paper, 

l~rofessor of Biology, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, N. C. 

28223. 
Finally, we tried not to become fwalved in the futtle exercise of 

perserving names* As Core (1955) so aptly said it, "~2vescsitg is not 

merely subjective or superficiall It is the result sf fundamental discontinuity of genetic systems*" We wanted to reeognlze the diversity in the 

North Carolina flora as realistica15y as possible, Our basic reference 

was the Manual of the Vascular Flora -- sf the Gas~lfnas (Radford - et -9 a1 

19681, and our noaenclature, for the most past, follows their interpretam 

tion, We included 9% species in the primary list, Some of' these are hybrids, and same have infraspeeiffc designations, Chance hybrids were not 

included, but species of well documented ancient hybrid origin, such as 

Wright" cliff-break fern (Pellaea X Hooker) and the Tennessee 

bladder fern Q X tennesseensis Shaver) were included because 

they represent distinct species of no less concern than those derived by 

other mechanisms- Spontaneous hybrids, even though given a binomial name 

suck as Habenaria X andrewsii mite ex Mile sr X radfordii 

Ahles, however rare, were not included, especially since the parental gene 

pools are knom, 

In the infraspecific category, we wanted ts recognize any gene pool 

designated as a subspecies or variety which fit our criteria for species 

included on the list, ise, Mountain paper birch var , 

(Regel) FemaLd), The degree sf taxo is not 

as important as genetic discontinuity. Whether we, as taxonomists, call 

something a species, subspecies or variety is insignificant if we are eoncerned with preserving unique genotypes, 

We accepted the Smithssnian definition of endangered and threatened 

as a working model, with same modifications: : An endangered 

species is one whose survival in North Caroli to be in serious 

jeopardy, Its peril may result from destruction or drastic modification 

of its specific: habitat, over-exploitation by man, disease, predation, or 

specific competitian due to natural successisn, h endangered species 

must receive protection, or extinction in North Carolina probably will 

follow, Threatened: A threatened species is me that may Eikeiy becone 

endangered if its habitat is not maintained, or if it is greatly exploited 

by man, These are sften quite rare in North Carolina and should be monitored continuouslye They must receive protection within the state' 

Defining the tern rare is quite difficult, because rareness involves 

two variables, first the overall distribution and second the relative density or frequency of individual plants within that distribution, The 

limits of both variables are entirely subjective, A species, i,el,Bladen 

buttercup (RanuncuBus subcordatus E, 0, Beal), may be sare because it is 

represented by very few individual plants and is restricted to a limited 

geographical area, hother, the ~ewis' heart leaf (Hexastvlis 1ewisii 

(Fernald) BLamquist h Oosting) may be rare because it occurs over a fairly 

broad range but is in very Isw density, while another, the Ocanee bells 

(Shsmc-tia T, d G,), may be rare because sf a very limited total 

distribution within which it is LocaIEy abundant, Characterizing species 

as being rare depends on the interpretation of these variables, Additionally in North Carolina, we found that species are rare because they may be 

Bong range disjuncts or endemics, or %key may be at the periphery of their 

range, 
A long range disjunct is a rare segment of a species population which 

is significantly separated from the main area of distribution. right's 

cliff-break (g. X Hooker) is now reported from two sites in the 

North Carolina Piedmont, but is nearly 1,000 miles east of its nomal range 

in the southwestern United States. 

An endemic is a species which has its nathe area totally confined to 

a small area of North Carolina, and possibly adjacent neighboring states. 

For a strict North Carolina endemic, Mountain golden heather (Hudsonia 

montana Nuttall) can be cited; for an endemic extending into a neighboring 

state, the VenusYly-trap (Dionaea Ellis), occurring in three 

counties of South Carolina, is an example. 

h extinct species is one which was endemic in earlier times but is 

no longer found. The Bigleaf scurfpea Rowlee ex 

Small) was collected only once in 1897 xtirpated 

species is a disjunct or peripheral species which is no longer found in 

North Carolina but still occurs elsewhere. Sweet gale (Gale 

(Lam.) Chev.), a disjunct from Pennsylvania northward, did occur in Henderson County. 

Peripheral species may be fairly comon north, west and south, but 

rare at the terminus of their distribution in North Carolina. These native, peripheral species represent an integral part of the North Carolina 

flora. Their elimination here may represent a significant reduction in 

the gene pool of that species. The Palmetto palm (Sabal Lodd. ex 

Schultes) provides a good example of this. In fact, we have included 319 

species in the secondary list of endangered and threatened peripheral 

species. 

Exploitation is also a threat to some species. Ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolium L. ) , Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L. ) and Venus ' f ly-trap 

(g. muscipula Ellis) all face the problem of over-zealous collecting. 

Often, labelling a species as rare hastens its destruction as enthusiasts 

rush to ttprotect" it by transplanting into gardens, Management, to permit 

survival in nature, does not always mean leaving it alone, The necessity 

for periodic burning to maintain the population competitiveness of pitcher 

plants (Sarracenia sp.) is a prime example. 

Combining the reasons for rareness with the concepts of endangered 

and threatened permits eight categories, Value judgments must then be made 

as to the proper category for each species. Table 1 shows a portion of 

the designations of the 91 species of primary concern. It should be pointed out that the category of a particular species can change as-additional 

information becomes available, Note that exploited species carry double 

designations. If an extinct or extirpated species is ever found, Ft will 

automatically be transferred to the endangered category, 

As noted above, the primary list contains 91 species (2.7% of the 

vascular flora) and the secondary peripheral list, 319, for a total of 410 

rare species of native vascular plants in North Carolina. This total represents 12% of the total vascular flora, These lists are different from 

those compiled by the Smithsonian Institution in 1974, the North Carolina 
Table 1. --- 

Eriocaulon lineare Linear pipewort 

preading avens 

Departnnent of Natural and Economic Resources in 1973, and the North Carolina Garden Clubs and North Carolina Wild Flower Preservation Society. We 

are not saying that these Lists are wrong or that these species are the 

only ones worthy of preservation. We need to be concerned with the preservation of all 3,600 species of vascular plants in the state. The list is 

incomplete, but will be updated with additions, deletions, changes of 

status, and additional county distributions. 

N,GI Endangered and Threatened Plant Cornittee: 

S, We Hardin, Chm,, N,C. State Univ. 

R, L. Kologiskl, N.C, State Univ. 

J. Re Massey, TJNC-Chapel Hill 

J. F, Mattbews, UNC-Charlotte 

J. De Plttillo, Western Carolina Univ. 

A, E, Radford, mC-Chapel Will 

LITERATURE CITED 

Core, E. L. 1955. Plant Taxonomy. 459p. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 

NJ , 

Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, 1975. Threatened or 

endangered fauna or flora. Federal Register Vol. 40, No. 127. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 

Nssth Carolina Departnnent of Natural and Economic Resources. 1973. Preliminary list of endangered plant and animal species in North Carolina. 

Raleigh, NC, 

Radford, A, E, et al, 1968, Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. 1183 p. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 

Smithsonian Institution. 1974. Report on endangered and threatened plant 

species of the United States, 94th Congress, House Document No. 94-51. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 
DEFEN ITIBM AND CLASSIFICATION OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED 

PLAMT SPECIES 

Thomas M. Pullen 1/ 

Abstract. --Suggesdi ons are proposed for dealing wi$h the 

ambiguities which exist in definitions of terms used to describe 

the relative abundance of plant species. 

: Rare plants, 

During the 1 ast few years scientists, government offi cia1 s and aqencies, 

and informed citizens have became more and mere concerned about the increasing 

rate of extinctions among extant species of plants. This has focused attention on the necessity for taking inventory and evaluating the status of those 

species which still remain, and to develop workable conservation plans for those 

found to be endangered* 

Many efforts toward this end have been launched in recent years. Some have 

been at the state level, others on a regional basis, and as a result of the passage by Congress of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Public Law 93-205, at 

the national level, One of the difficulties encountered in such efforts has 

been, and still is, adequate definition of what constitutes a rare and/or endangered species. The major purpose of this paper is to have a look at this problem. 

Ue find the literature replete with terms describing the relative abundance 

or the status of plant species. Among those most frequently encountered are 

common, uncommon, rare, sporadi c, threatened, endangered, and extinct. There i s 

little disagreement as to the meaning of the term extinct. klhen repeated searches 

of sites where a plant once grew and of nearby similar habitats fai 1s to uncover 

the plant, there can be little disagreement that the plant no longer exists. On 

the other hand, definitions of the other and similar terms are very inexact. A 

species that is considered common in North Carolina might be rated as rare in 

Mississippi. Most botanists usually consider a species rare when the plants exist 

in small numbers or when they are few and widely separated. This situations exists 

either because there have never been many of these plants on the earth or they have 

reached their present status due to depredations of man or other animals or disease. 

In any case rare plants, by their very nature should be considered threatened or 

endangered, 

The author suggests the adoption of the definitions set forth in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 for those species we are most concerned about. Therein 

we find the two terms "endangered" and "threatened." Endangered species are 

defined as "those in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of their ranges." Threatened species "are those which are likely to become endanI/ Professor of Biology and Curator of the Herbarium, University 

of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677. 
gered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 

their' ranges." The law establ ishes the fol lowing criteria for determining whether a species should be listed as an endangered species: 

1. "The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

2. Overutilization for commercial, sporting, scientific 

or educati emf purposes ; 

3. Disease or predation; 

4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or 

5. Other natural nr man-made factors affecting its 

continued existence 

We are al l familiar with the 1 ist of endangered, threatened, or extinct 

plant species of the United States prepared by the Smithsonian Institution as 

a result of the passage of the Endangered Species Act. We are also grateful for the tremendous effort that went into this undertaking. There can be no 

doubt of the value of such a national effort but the author believes that state 

and local lists are also very important. Locally imperiled species should be 

preserved even though they may be abundant el sewhere. 
A REVIEW OF ENDMGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1373 

James D, WIlZia~s and Gail S, hker 

OFFICE OF ENDMGERED SPECIES %%;FJD INTERSATIOXAL ACTIVITIES 

U,S, FISH AhdD WILDLIFE SER'JICE 

WASH J?<GTO34, D , C , 

Ike Endangered Scecies JILct of is73 3 s the stx-slqes: legislation - " e<ea" enacted to pr.o$eet Enda;kge-eag PZ:,~ r:F-ra-~ -L,G-dcL T,*T.#--- ghazits qnd ani- 

~als. 'rjle beet gj-,es +k.,e qepa-~+::&~cn.i". e:",:<;yz2e**:;, slid 1nzeri3~ 

repfatory and sCa.",tory authority ._in Endazrgered and Threatened 

fauna and flora, The 1973 Act provide. for two categories of species listing, Endangered and "I'nreatened, as opposed to one category, 

Enbngered, in the 1969 Act, Also new are provisions for State 

cooperation and participation in the prcgram through cooperative 

agreements, grants-in-aid funding, and orher incentives, me 

1973 Act calls for participation where approprira~e by all Federal 

Agencies and directs that no Federal funds can be utilized far 

an activity that would be detrimental to an Endangered or Threatened species, 

This presentation is based on a reveiw of the Endnnger~d Species Act 

prepared by the staff biologists of the Office of Endangered Species and International Activities, The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (hereinafter referred 

to as the Act] was passed by the SSrd Congressand signed. isrts law by the Bresident of the United States on December 28, 1973, The Act is the strongest 

legislation ever enacted to preservesand protect Endangered and Threatened 

animals and plants* The Act expands upon previous acts on Endangered species, 

the most recent being the Endangered Species Conservarion Act of 1969. The 

1973 Act provides for two categories of spccie listing, Endangered and 

Tnreatened, as opposed to one previous category of endangered in the 1969 Act. 

It allows for listing on a population basis for animals of any group. Also 

new are provisions for State cooperation and participation in the program 

through cooperative agreements, grants-in-aid funding, and other incentives. 

The new Act calls for participation where appropriate by all Federal agencies and directs that no Federal funds can be utilized for an activity that 

would be detrimental to an End~ngered species, 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is a very complex eiece of legislation amd has frequently led to confiision 83d various erronestas izrterpretatisns. The following is a brief review of the .Act section by section to 

point out some of the more important features of the Act. The following 

paper by Baker and MacBryde explains the provisions of the Act for plants. 

Section 2 presents the reasons far the Act, Because of man9 activities, species of wildlife have become extinct cnd gthes species are presently 
faced with the threat of extinction, Reeomized are the educatianal, scientific, recreational, historical and esthetic values of endangered and 

threatened species. The need for protection of Endangered species and 

Threatened species is a world-wide problem and has been recognized by international treaties and conventions. Tne Act provides a tool to implement 

international commitments. The States and other interested parties are an 

integral part of the program xs meet both natisnd and intesnational nee& 

for protection of wildlife. Through Federal financial assistance and other 

incentives State participation is to be encouraged. 

The purposes of the Act are to conserve the ecosystems upon which 

- 

2---~c~5-~oer-Ap ,,& -2 p-~ ,r u ii~?rsa.",e~ixi species depend, srad provide a progya&?"e far the 

conservztiai~ of such species. The Act also inswesthat the 3.S, lives up 

to "55 fm::t~y~a-g-5vygjI trreabt5.u apd ?oyz*yszticns i.n c~-.sseruatkor: to ~~gjlich it is 

& party, ?i;r;~A:y, Gsrigressdac2sred thst it was their policy that all Fedelrlstl 

departments and agencies should seek &o conserve Endangered and Threatened 

species and should utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purpose 

BE "$he Act, 

Section 3, Definitions 

There are 16 terms which are defined for the purposes of the Act, Sefec- - - 

ted definitions of terms whose meanings are important keys to interpretation 

of certain sections of the Act are as follows: 

(2) The terms "conserve," "cor,serving," and uconservationv mean to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring and Endangered species or Threatened species to the point at which the measure provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedursinclude, but are not limited to, a11 activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated 

taking, To most wildlife managers, the term conserve as used in the Act 

~3ans management. 

(4) The term "Endangered speciesw means any species which is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than 

a species of the Class Insects determined by the Secretary to constitute a 

pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present overwhelming and overriding risk to man, 

(5) The term ?fish and wildlifew means any member of the animal kingdom, 

including without limitation any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty 

sr ather international agreement), mphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, 

arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or 

offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. 

(9) The term "plantv means sny member of the plant kingdom, including seeds, 

soot, and othe~ parts thereof, 
(11) The ten flspecies" includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants 

and any other group of fish or wildlife sf the same species ss smaller taxa 

in common spatial arrangement that interbreed wken mature, 

(14) The term "takew 'mean to hartass, ham, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kiil, 

trap, capture, or collect, or to atteapt to engage in any such conduct, 

(15) The tern "91.lreatened speciesrt means any species which is likely to 

become ran endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all 

or a sipificant portion of its range, 

Section 4 provides for the deteminatlon of Endangered and ilrreatened 

species. The deterirination of a sp.3c:q.i ;;q "~iid;~cryr.a5~i'' 2: >'*~;,~~..--;.s~.3'i bA - " 

is based upon one or more of the following factors: 

(I) The present or threatened destmctisn, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(2) Overutilization for commercial, sporting, scientific, or educational purposes; 

(3) Disease or predation; 

(4) The inadequacy of existing re~latosy mechanisms; or 

(5) Other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

The Secretary of Comerce bears the prime responsibility far the detesmination of Endangered sr Threatened marine species, The Secretary sf the 

Interior has the responsibility for all other species, plus the actual 

determination process for all species. The procedures involved are 

detailed in the flow chart in Fiwre 1, 

When species are determined to be Threatened, regulations that are necessary for protection and management may be issued by the Secretary. However, 

it may not be necessary to issue any regulations for some species. The Secretary can issue regulations that prohibit any act that is promulgated 

under Section 9 of the Act. An exception to this is when a State has entered 

into a cooperative agreement, than only those regulations which have been 

adopted by the State Esr threatened resident species of wildlife shall 

apply 0 

Wen a species is similar in appearance to an Endangered or Threatened 

species, regulations can be issued for this species to insure protection of 

the Endangered or Threatened species. The reasons for this are to avoid 

difficulties of identification by law enforcement personnel, prevent additional threats to Endangered or Threatened species and further the intent of 

the Act, 

L All regulations by the Secretary will be published in the Federal 

Register after consultation with appropriate State and Federal agencies and 

interested persons and organizations, 
FIGUM 1 

MODIFYING LISTS OF THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Replies to 

Unfounded 

&minations 

creens an 

De temines 

Resident 

t YES 

Other Countries - 

NO -Scientific and -""Cnsult" with such 

Comon Names countries in coopera- 

-Portion of Range tion w/Secy of State 

-Sumary of Facts and 

-ff Proposal is for 

'Threatened List" 

-Special Regulations 

ast 60 days for Coment 
MODIRING LIS ERED SPECIES 

Public 

Hearing Requested 1 

Hearing Granted 

-Notify Requester 

-Announce in F,R. 

-Hold Hearing 

Hearing Denied 

-Notify Requester 

-Publish Reasons for 

Denial In F.R, 

Compile, Analyze Information 

Not Threatened Make Determination Whether 

or Endangered Threatened, Endangered or 

Non- threatened 

Threatened I1 Endangered 

Publish Rulemaking Publish Rulemaking 

Must include any 

Special Regulatiocs 

1 % LISTING 
At the present time (April 1976) the official list contains a total 

of 427 Endangered species and 11 Threatened species of both foreign and 

domestic origins. Of the 427 species, 147 are Endangered or Threatened 

species found in the U.S. and its territories. The present U.S. lists of 

Endangered and Threatened species includes 33 m 15, 66 birds, 8 reptiles 

4 amphibians, 34 fishes, and 2 insects, The list -- does not include all of the 

species found in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1973 Red Book. It is anticipated that the restructuring of the list should occur within the next year, 

There are no plants on the list at this time, 

Section 5, Land Acquisition 

This section authorizes acquisition of land and water habitat for 

Endangered and Threatened species using Land and Water Conservation funds. 

This provision was also present in the 1966 and 1969 Acts. To date more 

than 40,000 acres of habitat for 11 Endangered species has been acquired 

at the cost of approximately 13 million dollars. 

Section 6. Cooperation with States 

This section of the Act recognizes the need for close cooperation 

with the States and provides for management agreements and cooherat ive 

agreements to assist the States with their programs. Management agreements between States and the Fish and Wildlife Service provide for administration and management of areas established for the conservation of 

Endangered species or Threatened species. In cases where conflicts arise 

between State and Federal laws or regulations, the more restrictive laws or 

regulations shall apply. 

Cooperative agreements, among other things, provide for Federal assistance to the States for implementation of State Endangered and Threatened 

species programs. For a State to be eligible for a cooperative agreement 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the State agency must have: 

(1) Authority to conserve species that have been determined by the 

State or the Fish and Wildlife Service to be Endangered or 

Threatened. This authority should be broad enough to cover 

additional species that may be listed in the future, 

(2) Acceptable conservation programs for all resident fish or 

wildlife species in the State that has been determined to be 

Endangered or Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

(3) Authority to conduct investigations. 

(4) Authority to acquire land or aquatic habitats for conservation 

of resident Endangered and Threatened species. 

(5) Provisions for public participation in designating resident 

Endangered species or Threatened species, 

Cooperative agreements provide for 1) the actions that are to be taken by 

the Secretary and the States, 2) the benefits that are expected to be derived 

by the cooperative program, 33 the estimated cost of the actions, and 4) the 

share of the costs by the Federal Government and the States, The Federal 

share shall not exceed two-thirds of the estimated program costs; however, 

this share can be increased to 75% for species shared by two or more States. 
Review of the State's programs must be made at least annually to assure 

that their programs are effective and that legal authorities are still 

appropriate, 

to review all Department of Interior 

programs and to use-these programs for furtherance of the Act. All other 

Federal agencies in consultation with the Secretary and his assistants, 

are to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the Act by camying out 

programs for the conservation of Endangered and Threatened species. These 

agencies are also to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out 

by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of these species or result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat that is determined 

to be critical for them by the Secretary after consultation with the 

affected States, 

tional programs for Endangered animal and plant species. Among other items, this section provides the mechanics for financial assistance, encouragement of foreign programs, personnel, 

investigations, and implementation of the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 

Section 9. Prohibited Acts 

Two important prohibitions under the Act make it unlawful for any person 

subject to ;he jurisdiction of the United States to - take any Endangered fish 

or wildlife species within the United States or the United States Territorial Sea (take - means harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or attempt to engage in any such activity), and to violate 

any of the regulations that may be promlgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Threatened fish or wildlife species. It is also unlawful 

for any person to violate regulations promulgated by the Secretary on Threatened plant species. The Act does not prohibit the "taking" of Endangered 

or Threatened plant species, 

Section 9 also deals with Endangered and/or Tnreatened species held in 

captivity, with violations of the Convention, and with import/export only 

via official ports designated. 

Section 10. Pemits 

Permits may be issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would 

allow certain actions that are prohibited under the Act (e.g., taking of 

Endangered and Threatened species of fish and wildlife). These permits 

are issued for scientific purposes or for propagation or survival programs 

that would enhance the species. i\n application for a permit must be filed 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which then reviews and publishes 

the application in the for a 30-day period. If no valid, 

adverse biological co , the permit is then issued to 

the individual that will be conducting the programs or activities. 
Section 11, Penahties and Enforcemen2 

Section $4, expresses %he civil pena%ties that can be assessed by the 

Secretary on persons who violate the Act, It also covers criminal violations, rewards, district court jurisdiction, and enforcement, It also 

provides for citizen suits that can enjoin any person, including governmental 

agencies or instmmenla%ity who is alleged to be in violation of the Act, 

nrough this section, the Secretary of the Smkthsonian 'Frasituticsn, in 

conjunction with affected agencies, was directed to review plant species and 

develop a recornmended list and recommendations for conservation of Endangered 

and Threatened plant species within one year. This information was presented 

in a repcart to the Congrssin December WM4, 

This section amends other acts to be consistent with the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, 

This section repeals the Endangered Speeies Conservation Act sf 1969, 

This section authorizes funding for the Departments of Interior and 

Cornerce to carry out their responsibilities under the Act, 

Section 16, Date 

This section provides far the effective date sf the Act---December 28, 

1974. 

d for in the Act, 

no provision of $Re Act will take gsededence over any more restrictive, 

conflicting provisions sf the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1975, 

This has been a very brief review sf %ke Endangered Species Act of 

1943, For additional infomation, a copy sf the Act, various Federal Register 

documents listing species and critical habitat and general information on 

Endangered and Threatened species, please contact the Office of Endangered 

Species, LS, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D,C, 20240 
THE ENDmGERED MD THREATENED PLMT PRBG 

OF THE U,S, FISH kVD WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Gail S, Baker and Bruce WcBqde 

OFFICE OF ENDAitiGERED SPECIES &"dD INTEWATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

U,S, FISH mB WILDLIFE SERVICE 

WASHINGTON, D,G, 

The Endanger& Species Act of 1W73 differs from the 1966 and 

1969 Acts by including plants. The Smithsonian Institution prepared a list of 3,187 candidate Endangered and mreatened plant 

taxa as required by the Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

accepted thls list as a petition in the Federal 

July 1, 1975. The 45 foreign plant taxa on Appe 

Convention Fauna and Flora were published in the 

on September 26, 1975, A major difference between the treatment for plants and animals in the Act is that the "takingw of 

plants is not regulated, although interstate and international 

commerce are, 

The previous paper by Williams discusses the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) in general terms; this paper explains the 

provisions of this Act for plants. 

Previous Endangered Species legislation (1966 and 1969) did not include 

plants. In Section 3 of the 1973 Act the tern uplantsw is defined as "any 

member of the plant kingdom, including seeds, roots and other parts thereof," 

Sectio~l 2(a)(4) of this Act specifies that the U.S. has pledged itself to 

conserve the 20,000 plants now listed in the Appendices of the Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 

Section 12 sf the 1973 Act directs the Snithsonian Institution to review 

species of plants which are or may become endangered or threatened and to 

report to Congress within one year, 

There are several major differences in how plants and animals are dealt 

with in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

In Section 3, the term "species" is defined as including "any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any other group of fish or wildlife 

of the same species or smaller taxa in comon spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature." Hence, population segments of animals are included in 

the Act, whereas population segments of plants are not included. 

Section5 states that land can be purchased for the conservation of 

Endangered and Threatened wildlife, fish or plants with funds made avail- 
able oursuant to the amended Land and Water Consenration Fund Act of 1965. 

For plmts there is the added restriction that they must be included in 

the Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species 06 Wild Fauna and Flora, mis international convention has been 

ratified by the Unit&$ States and over twenty other countries, and came 

into force on July 1, 1975, 

The purpose of the Convention is to reduce the impact of international 

trade on plants and animals for which this activity is or may "oeome ak threat 

$0 their survival, These organisms are listed, depending on the degree sf 

endangerment, on the three appendices of the Convention, Appendix 'I, the 

most serkously jeopardized group of animals and plants, includes only foreign 

plant taxa, but Appendix il includes the entire orchid and eaclus families, 

both of which have many rare taxa in the United States, Appendix II alsa 

includes ginseng which is native to ~brth America. 

Appendix I11 of -& es no plants as yet, but the United 

States, as a party to the Convention, can milaterally add plant species to 

this Appendix to prevent commercial exploitation, 

Section 6 deals with cooperative agreements with States and provisions for financial aid from the Federal government to carry out these cooperative progsms, Before a State can enter into a cooperative agreement, 

it must show that a State agency exists which has the authority to establish 

programs, including the acquisition of land, for the conservation sf resident Endangered and mreatened species, mere is some quesLion as the whether 

Section 6 applies to plants, The Fish and Wildlife Senice is seeking 

authority do pernit States to enter into cooperative agreements for whatever 

Endangered and mreatened species they have authority to conserve, A decision 

an this matter will be reached shortly, 

Section 7 deals with interagency cooperation, and directs all Federal 

agencies to maintain programs for the conservation of Endangered and mreatened 

species, It also directs them to insure that actions ztuthorized, funded or 

carried out by them do not jeopardize the existence of such species or modify 

Critical Habitat of such species, Section 7 is a major strength of the Act 

with respect to plants, 

Perhaps the mst important difference between plants and animals in the 

kt is that the "takingw of Endangered animafs is prohibited, whereas the 

taking of Endangered plants is not, Section 9 spelPs out the prohibitions 

for plants, It will be unlawful to: 

(I.) import or export such plants to or from the UPnited States; 

42) transport such plats in interstate or foreign commerce; and 

(3) sell such plants in interstate sr foreign conuneree, 

Section 9 does not prohibit or regulate; 

[a) the intrastate sale of such a plant; and 

(2) interstate movement of such plants unless it involves 

commercial activities which include a change in 

ohaership , 
Section PO provides for exceptions to these prohibitions, Permits 

will be issued by the U,S, Fish and Kildlife Service, as they are for 

Endangered and Threatend animals, to carry out prohibited acts for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagatton or survival of the affected 

species, 

Section 12, as mentioned earlier, directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to conduct the initial reveiw of possible Endangered and 

nreatened plants, and to recornend methods sf adequately conserving such 

species, The Smithsonlan Institution was given one year to complete this 

task, and their geWepoaa";n Endangered and Threatened Plant Species of the 

United Stades~~(Efouse Document 94-51) was presented to Congress on January 9, 

1975, This report contains the names of over 3000 plznt taxa which are perhaps extinct, or possible endangered or threatened, Over 1000 sf these are 

endemic to Hawaii, Other States with very large numbers of piants included in 

the report are California, Texas, and Florida, 

TI-re Endangered Flora Project within the Department of Botany at the 

Smithsonian Institution was responsible for preparing the report, Their 

lists were prepared by reviewing floras, taxonomic monographs and re'c"isions, 

Also, taxonomic specialists were consulted and some collections were checked 

in herbaria, State lists of rare and endangered plants were also used as 

reference material, (The report is not a compilation of State lists, however, 

since a plant may be extirpated, rare OF endangered in one Sate, but very 

comsnon in another,) In September 2374, a workshop was held under the joint 

sporzsorskip of the Smi"chsonian Institution and the Office of Endangered 

Species: and International Activities of the U-5, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

The par"tieigants included botanists from Federal agencies, universities and 

botanical gardens, They reviewed tke plants on a preliminary list and refined 

.it; mu& unpublished data and new distributional information was used during 

the workshop. Since the Smithsonian Institution report lists plants found 

basically in the 50 States, species occurring outside the U,S, as well were 

nod included unless their exact endangerment status outside the country was 

known. Only vascular plants are covered by the Act, (DeFi.Li.pps (19768 presented a history sf the compilation sf the report,) 

The Endangered Flora Project at the Smithsonian Institution has continued 

its work. The lists of plants in the original report have been revised on the 

basis of coments received both by the Smithssnian and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, The revised lists will be published in ?lay or June of 1976, In 

addition, the Endangered Flora Project personnel are preparing computerized 

distribution maps sf the localities of the exploited plants listed in the 

report, and computerized information sheets for the plants included in their 

revised lists. They are also preparing a series of Red Data Book entries of 

U.S. plants for the I.U.C.N. Red Data Book on Angiosperms. This series includes 

representatives of different geographical regions, diverse plant fanilies and 

various kinds sf threats, 

me U,S, Fisl~ and Wildlife Service -regards the Smithssnian InstitutionDs 

Peport $;$r be 3 ftpetitionfbas provided fsr in Section 4Cc) (2) of the Act, On 

July 1, 1975, the Smithsonian Institution's list [plus a few additions and 
csrrections) was published as a ""Nodice of Reviewlqin the Federal Register, 

By publication oflthis list the Service formally initiated 

status of these plants pursuant to the Endangered Species Act sf 1993, 

Previously, on April 21, 19ZS a OfNotice of Review" for four plmts was 

published in response to a petition from a group of Wisconsin citizens, Subsequent to the publication sf both Notices, the governors sf all States and 

U,S, Territories involved were informed and their comments were solicited, 

Copies of the July 1 Notice were also sent to many other U,S, govemrncnt 

agencies and botanists throughout the country, The 45 Eereip plant taxa on 

Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 

Wild Fauna and Flora were published in the as a 

mlemaking on-September 26, 1975, 

As of &y 1976, therefs~, aver 3200 plants are in the ~OC~SS of 

being considered for determination as Endangered or mreatened, In the near 

future, the Fish and Wildlife Service is planning to propose: 

(1) repfations that would implement the Act with regard do 

plants and 

(2) a determination that about 1700 plants form the Smithsonian 

revised report are Endangered pursuant do the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, 

Both the proposed replations and the proposed list of Endangered giants 

will probably be published in the Federal by the sumer of 1976, A 

mlnimum 6B-day comment period will follow both proposed mlemakings, 

Also, a final mlemaking that determines which of those plants on Appendix 1 of the Convention are to be classified as Endangered on the U,S, list 

will probably be published in the sumer of 1976, 

Obviously, the Endangered Spe~ies Act bf 1973 ofEers many possibilities 

Eon" plant conservation, The help of prcrfessisna4s, such as the pa%ticip;mts in 

this conference, is essential for responding wisely and effectively to the Act, 

Any data on plants, will be welcomes by the Office of Endangered Species, Details 

sn distribution, threats to survival, propagation techniques and recent taxonomic studies are some of the kinds of information which can help the U,S, Fish 

and Wildlife Service implement the Endangered Species Act sf 1973 an behalf sf 

our plant heritage. 

LITEWTURE CITED 

DeFilipps, R.A. 1976. How proposed lists of threatened and endangered plant 

species were prepared, In: Spposium on mreatened and Endangered Plants, 

Society for Rmge Management and Society of heriean Foresters, New Mexico 

Sections, APberguerque (in preparation], 

Public Law 93-205(1973). Endangered Species Act of 1973. 87 Statute 884-903. 

93rd Congree, S. 1983, 21pp. 
FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS ON ENDANGERED PLANTS 

LI Frank £3, Barick -- 

Abstract. - Discusses current status of Federal and State laws 

and programs related to presenration of endangered plants in North 

Carolina, as well as statutory needs to provide for implementation 

in North Carolina. 

Kewords: Endangered plants, North Carolina, endangered species 

act, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Csmission, 

In discussing the subject assigned to me - Federal and State Programs on 

Endangered Plants - I would like to first briefly review those aspects of the 

Federal Endangered Species Act relating to plants and recent developments at 

the federal level in this area. Second, I will discuss the present status of 

North Carolina laws relating to endangered plants. Third, I will discuss the 

endangered species program of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 

And fourth, I will briefly discuss future needs for implementing this program, 

The Federal Endangered Species Act was passed on December 28, 1973. This 

was about 2 11'2 years ago, Although the act provided for funding of cooperative programs with the states, no moneys have as yet been released for this 

purpose, We have received word, however, that such funds will be forthcoming 

after July 1 of this year. 

The general purposes of the Act are succinctly expressed in its introduction and are well worth repeating at this time to help us focus on our mission. 

The upon which the Act is based are as follows: 

1) Various species of fish, wildlife and plants in the United States 

have been rendered extinct as a result of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation. 

2) Other species have been so depleted in numbers as to be faced with 

extinction, 

3) These species are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational and scientific value to the Nation and its 

people. 

As a result of these findings, the United States has pledged itself to 

conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish, wildlife and 

plants faced with extinction, 

The Act states that the Federal government shall encourage the states and 

other interested parties to develop conservation progrms designed to conserve 

endangered species through a system of incentives, i.e, financial support, provided programs so designed meet federal standards, 

&/ Chief, Interagency Wildlife Coordination Section, North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Comission. 
Zt afsa established the policy that all federal agencies will seek to conserve andangered species and utilize their authorities in furtherance of this 

act, 

The Act provided for the establisbent of cooperative agreements with individual states that would fund specific work prsjects on a 66 213- 33 113 percent matching basis and required that such work be in accordance with priorapproved work plans, In order to qualify for participation states are required 

to demonstrate that: 

11 The designated state agency has the authority to consewe endangered 

species, 

2) That the designated state agency has an acceptable program of endangered speeies preservation, 

31 mat the agency is authorized to conduct investigations to deternine 

the status and needs of endangered species, 

4) mat the agency is authorized to acquire land and water habitats and 

manage same. 

5) mat the agency will provide for public participation in designating 

endangered species, 

Passage of the Federal Act cae after several years sf investigation and 

reporting by fish and wildlife biologists and it was only natural that major 

responsibility for implementation was assigned to the U. S, Fish and Wildlife 

Seavice in the Department of the Interior, Because of this early work there 

was a considerable body sf information at hand on the status of faunal species 

at the time the Act was passed. As a result, it was possible for the Secretary 

of the Interior to issue an off icial list of endangered animal species about 

the sme time as the Act was passed. No such list of plants was available, however, and so the Smithsonian Instf tute was instructed to compile a preliminary 

List, This was published fast year and a proposed official list is scheduled 

to be published in the Federal Register later this year, We are advised that 

this list will contain about 1700 species, about half of which are confined to 

Hawaii and that about 16 occur in North Carolina as endangered and about 48 as 

threatened, After a 60-day public coment period the Secretary of the Interior 

will establish an official federal list of endangered plants. He was given 

authority for such action by an executive order issued in April of 1976 - just 

last month, 

The Act establishes that a species of plant or animal on the Federal list 

is officially designated as endangered in any state where it occurs but that 

the state may indicate where in the state it has that status. Also, additional 

speeies may be designated as endangered or threatened by the state agency having 

jurisdiction over endangered species, 

Designation sf plants as endangered speeies and establishing regulations 

for their protection involves legal complications beyond those that surround 

animals, Since animals can move across property lines, they are owned by the 

people in severalty, i.e.,all of the people of the state, But plants are affixed to the land and so they are Legally part of the real estate. Thus, 
regulations regarding the presematfon of plants could cane into conflist with 

constitutions% and Legal property rights, For this reason, some landowners are 

seriously concerned about the enactment of laws relating to endangered species 

presemat ion, 

Because of this circumstance, that part st the U, S, Fish and Wildlife 

Service endangered species progrm rebated to cooperative funding of state programs is currently restricted to animal species, It is also restricted to inland water and terrestrial forms, i,e, excludes marine forms, PresumaB%y, provision will be made in the near future to include work on plants and marine 

forms. 

At the present time about a dozen states have completed negotiation of 

cooperative agreements with the U, S, Fish and Wildlife Service and we in North 

Carolina are now in the process, Certification that the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Comfssion has the required authorities has been developed with the 

eoopesatisn of the Statefs Attorney General and submitted to Washington, Upon 

receipt of approval sf this documentation, we shall proceed with development of 

a cooperative agreement and detailed work plan and budget, 

So much far the status of Federal laws and pssgrms on endangered species, 

Let us now turn our attention to North Carolina state laws, 

To the best of our knowledge, there is only one law on our books that is 

specifically designed to protect an endangered plant speeies, This is Section 

129.1 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes which prohibits the sale or barter 

of venus flytrap and assigns responsibility for enforcement to the Department 

of Conser-\i.ation and Development, Section 129 sf Chapter 14 prohibits the taking 

of wild plants from the Land of another without pemission but does not assign 

enforcement authority to any agency and 22 counties are exempt from its provisions, This section includes venus flytrap, trailing arbutus, hemlock and 

39 other species and groups of species (such as azaleas or coniferous trees), 

Laws which give the Mildlife Resources Cemission jurisdiction over endangered species make only tangential reference to plants, Thus, before the 

Commkssion can became actively engaged in enactment sf protective regulations 

kn this area, it will have to be clothed with additional authority by the State 

Legislature, The North Carolina Gme Law is currently under study for revision and we are hopeful that this deficiency will be remedied by the next 

legislature, We may be calling upon some of you for assistance in this effort 

at that time and we would hope that you will respond in a positive way, 

In this connection it my be appropriate to raise the question as to why 

the Mildlife Gomission, rather than some other state agency, should have this 

authority, This question was considered during the course of the 1975 Legislature in conjunction with the attempted passage of the "Model State Endangered 

Species Actu deevefoped by the U, S, Fish and Wildlife Service, At that time 

it was agreed by various state agencies and members of the Legislature that the 

Wildlife Resources Comission was the appropriate agency for administration sf 

endangered species conservation for the fslhawiwg reasons: 

1) Wild plants constitute part of the habitat and total ecology sf wild 

animals, over which the Comission already has jurisdiction, 
2) The Wikdkife Comrissisn already has a staff of professional bfslogists some sf whom can specialize in plant species, 

3) The Wildlife Co=ission has a staff of enforcement personnel who 

routinely patrol areas where endangered plant species grow, These 

officers can be trained and/or recruited to enforce endangered 

plant species regulations, 

4) The Wildlife Commission has a long history of regulation formulatEsn as regards wild animals and could readily adapt to fornulation of regulations relating to wild plants, 

5) The Wildlife Commission has had for many years an on-going cooperative - -*-+-- pL~gl&n $7: wj Id iisk BzG gesrie rn&~&ge1:1e3t wkth the U, S, Fish 

and WgldInfe 5~r-~-ice, 

r-- 6': ?he Wbl&E r.Ee fdi~ddt%~si&l: has ~5-r: %">';a" ies -sequsred by the 

Federal Endangered Species Act, except that as noted above, it 

needs to acquire additional authority in regard to wild plants, 

We now need to turn our attention for a few moments to the current endangered species program sf the Wildlife Csrmission, Before doing so, however, 

we should point out that the Commission has, from its establishent in 1941, 

always exercised a measure of concern for non-game and endangered species, It 

sponsored legislation protecting hawks and owls, alligators, bsbcats and panthers, It has conducted an active youth education program on all wildlife including songbirds and plants, And it has developed an extensive library of 

brochures and fifms or; various aspects of natural resources con~ernaticfn, 

With the emergence sf endangered species as a special area sf concern, 

the Wildlife Cormission established a three-phased program geared to take advantage of federal funding as it became available, Phase I, which was initiated 

last year, undertook development of a list cE persons and agencies having interest and professionak expertise in the area of endangered species, Many of 

you in this room responded to our questionnaire and have been entered in our 

register, If there are others among you who have not been contacted we would 

be pleased for you to see me about filling out a form outlining your area of 

interest, Another part sf Phase T was the development of a library on endangered 

plats and animals, Phase 1 is well almg toward completion but we are anx-kaus 

to add to it as opportunity occdrs. Lt was undertaken with existing staff and 

funds, and the special cooperation of the N. C. State Museum. We are especially 

grateful to Fiuseu-? Director Dr, John Funderburg for his help, 

Phase 81, which has not yet been initiated, is waiting on federal funds, 

It will cmsist of in-depth studies of species on the endangered and thmtened 

lists that occur in North Carolina, Its purpose will be to develop information 

on the status and distribution cf individual species, to identify faceors 

limitirig its survival and measures required to ensure its preservation These 

studies will be conducted on a contract basis by interested individuals, Perhaps sot-e of you here today may be interested in conducting such studies or 

you may know of others who would be interested, We shall be pleased to receive 

study proposals when funds become available, 

Phase IIL will consist of implementation of findings of Phase II. Implementation may take various forms, such as development of management programs, 
acquisition of critical habitat, public information, designation of additional 

species as endangered or threatened, development of regulations relating to 

taking and/or commercialization of endangered species, and enforcement of regulations, Phase 111 has r~ some extent been inplemented, at least in regard 

to one species - the red-cockaded woodpecker - in that we have developed habitat management procedures for application on our Sendhills Game Lands which 

constitute one of the major reservoirs for this species in North Carolina, 

Phase 1x1 will also entail the establishment of Advisory Comittees, 

possibly one for endangered animals and another for endangered plants. These 

cornittees will consist of professional persons as well as representatives of 

landomea: and*other intereses, Their function will be to advise the Wildlife 

Ressurces Gom"paission in regard to official designation of endangered and threatened species and development of regulations governing human activities reelating 

to them, They wit1 also provide ir=put for other management prcgraws, There 

are probably several here today who could render valuable service iii this manner. 

The Wibdf ife Gomission will need the active advgce and support of many 

people and other agencies if it is to effectively meet the needs of endangered 

species. It currently enjoys a good working relationship with other Divisions 

within the Department of Natural and Economic Resources and cooperates actively 

with the Department of Agriculture and the N, C, State Museum as well as several Federal agencies, We need to broaden these working relationships and especially those with academic institutions, many sf whlch are represented here today, 

In conclusion, we mu%d like to focus on three items that are urgently 

needed to assure the development of a strong and effective endangered species 

preservation program in North Carolina. We believe that those in attendance 

here can help attain these objectives and we actively soli@it your support, 

The first need is in regard to legisplation, We need to mend the present 

wildlife Law so as to fully clothe the Wildlife Csmissian with mthority over 

the sonsemation sf wild plants, This is nesessary so that we can conduct a 

balanced prsgrm that relates to bath groups of species that constitute our 

ecs-systems, 

The second need is to develop additional sources sf funds to provide matching money for federal grants. At the present time, the primary source of funds 

available to the Wildlife Comisslon comes from the sale 0% hu~ting and fishing 

Licenses, h%iLe hunters and fishemen are actfvely supporting endangered species 

conservation, excessive use of license money couad constitute '"divers ion of fundse8 

and raise questions in regard to proper handling of finances. The Commission will 

attempt to fulfill this need through sale of emblems and prints of paintings and 

will accept contributions to a special endangered species fund. We will be appreciative of your support in this funding effort. If you have any other ideas on 

how to raise the money please Let us hear from you, 

The third need for a successful endangered species presemation program is 

the development of effective communication between you the lay public and us the 

state agency, Me are deeply appreciative of this opportunity to bring you up to 

date on what we have been doing in this inportant area, We need to continue this 

comunieation and we invite you to let us hme the benefit of your thinking in 

the days and months ahead. We need your advice and guidance Secause you are the 

experts and we trust you will be generous with your input. 
EXPLOITATION OF ENDANGERED PLANTS AMD THEIR HABITATS 

Jerry McCollum, Biologist Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

ABSTWCT" 

Native plants have played an important role in the 

developnent of our nation. We no longer depend on native 

plants for their medicinal or food values to the extent that early Americans did. Some of our native plant species are decreasing in numbers because of various forms 

of' exploitation. Examples are large-scale acreage conversion, comercia1 development, public projects, comr?erc!e! col Secting and private collecting, If State programs are to be effective in the protection and management of endangered species several program el ments need 

imediate attention. Implementation of information, education, and enforcement program elements are essential. 

Program staff must a1 so demonstrate to top management 

that rational and real i stic management for endangered 

plants is pessible. 

INTRODUCTION 

The exploitation of native plants has been a fact of life throughout history. There have been times when, except for native plants, 

human beings might have perished. There have been many volumns 

written on the sub3ect of the use of native flora, and the significant 

part it has played in the development of our nation. American folklore contains numerous accounts of l ife-saving plants as well as 

notorious life-taking plants. Americans have a heritage deeply enriched by native plant life. 

Unfortunately, our native flora does not, and never has existed 

in inexhaustible quantities. Many of our country's greatest 

naturalists began to warn us as much as a century ago that Americas' 

native plants and animals exist in finite numbers and special care 

would have to be taken in order to preserve them. Today in our 

technological ly advanced society, we no longer find it necessary to 

exploit our native plants for the medicines and foods to insure 

our personal survival or the survival of our families. Why, then, 

do we continue to find that some of our native plants are decreasing 

in numbers at an alarming rate? 

It is apparent that certain forms of exploitation continue to 

assure the demise of certain members of our native flora, It is 

also apparent that immediate action is needed if the state agencies 

of the southeast which are responsible for the protection and management of endangered plants, are to be effective in insuring the 

prolonged existence of this valuable part of our natural heritage. 
EXPLOITATION IN THE NAME OF PROGRESS 

Large quantities of land which provide habitat for many of our 

endangered plants are being modified as a result 0% changdng land 

use practices, For example, thousands of acres of hardwood timber 

are annually being converted to pine monocul ture forest. In 

addition to the loss of the hardwoods this conversion represents 

the loss of untold acres of natural stands of understory 

vegetation, same sf whish are considered &n be endangered, 

Some farmland is now being taken niii of prcductian. but. sdbst&ntjal portjors c" 'fijs 2-e hejri,: p:;.qtktj :.!i+-/- ,;iq~ 4-1,- .I -*- 

mercial puqmses, Nationwjde, approxrinately I 25 ;ni*; 3 icg; alir e~ 

of cropland is being taken out of crop production annually (Council 

on Environmental Quality, 1975). This is land which could once 

again be availa$le as habitat for endangered plants if it were 

allowed to revert through succession to its natural climax 

state, 

Some hardwood to pine conversion attempis have met with p~s~ 

results. One exampf e is the wind rowing and conversion of sandridge cornunities to pine, The result has been stunted tree 

growth and an otherwise relatively sterile vegetative community, 

Since this timber crop will return a marginal profit, if any, 

the planting of the sandridge with pine seems only to achieve 

the datruction of habitat where studies indicade endangered 

species may be concentrated (Sqi thsonian Report, 7 975). 

The idea fostered by timber interests that the forests of 

the southeast states should be used primarily as a source for 

pulp, has placed additional pressures on populations of endangered plants by reducing the overall age and maturity of our 

southeastern forests and underwritten the pogie.~ of csnvertina 

hardwood stands to pl antation pine stands. Companies who practice 

this unwritten policy use the beech and maple forests of the northeast 

and the spruce and fir forests QP the i-3acff-k llorthwest for their source 

of saw timber. 

Ironically, while land suitable for agriculture is being 

taken out of production in parts of the southeast, additional 

acres of habitat are being lost to crop production on lands 

heretofor not used for intensive agriculture. This trend is due 

in part to the increasing use of irrigation in the southeast. 

The increase in acreage being irrigated annually is not known, 

but it is thought to be substantial, 

Increased pressure to develop coal reserves and other 

mineral resources of the southeast also accounts for increases 
in loss of endangered plant habitat through strip mining operations. 

According to the Smithsonian Institute's report on Endangered 

and Threatened Plant Species of the U.S. (1975), endangered species 

are usually found in narrow niches, such as mountain tops, ravines, 

river banks, acid bogs or rock cliffs. It is certainly less than 

a coincidence that much of the second home development boom of the 

late sixties and early seventies occurred at or near these types of natural features. They are some of the most scenic, remote and 

unspoiled areas of the southeast region of the country. The destruction of many endangered plants of these areas went largely unnoticed by the developers, the builders, and the buyers partly for lack of interest, but possibly more for lack of knowledge as to 

alternatives. It is possible,for example, that a state endangered species technical assistance program could have provided information 

which would have minimized the destruction. Advice to remove the 

top soil from roadcuts and other construction sites and filling 

with it when construction was complete may have saved large amounts 

of organic substraits. Or the assistance might go so far as to 

suggest sales slogan such as "Rare Homes with Rare Plants" as a means 

of informing potential buyers of the unique features offered by this 

development. 

In a similar manner, advice given to new home owners about 

the rare beauty and fragile nature of his plants and how he should 

care for them would very likely give rise to an attitude of personal 

stewardship for the entire community. 

While this type of development is experiencing a temporary lull, 

there is evidence that residential development in relatively unspoiled areas continues. The Bureau of Census (1975) reports that 

since 1970, metropolitan areas have grown at a slower rate than nonmetropolitan counties. And the indications are that instead of 

moving back to the farm, people are moving to within commuters reach 

of the smaller towns. This indicates that residential development associated with such a move will now be a primary residence - not 

a second home - built within one of the aforementioned narrow niches* 

Hence the exploitation of areas likely to harbor endangered plants continues. Other studies (Domestic Counci 1 , 1974) indicate big increases" in the growth rate of the southern Appalachians, one 

geographic region which was identified by the Smithsonian Report 

(1975) as an area "with concentrations of endemic species" which may 

be endangered. 

Many controversial statements have documented the exploitation 
of fragile resources by public agencies such as the U.S. Corps of 

Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, and State and federal transportation and agriculture agencies, It is not difficult to find serious disagreement among different government agencies as to which one is 

actually conducting it's business in the public interest. Admittedly, usually both are, each using its' own criteria for measuring achievement. The simple fact is, that vast acreages of land - some harboring endangered species - have been and are being consumed by public projects throughout the southeast. According to 1973 figures, the 

U. S. Corps of Engineers had under management, more than 470,000 acres 

of flat water in its South Atlantic Division alone. Of course, the 

acreage of habitat consumed by creating that flat water would be 

considerably greater. Since those figures were released at least 

two additional major reservoirs have been created in Georgia (i . e. , West Point Reservoir and Carter Reservoir), both of which inundated 

habitat which harbored endangered plants. This is especially true 

of Carter Reservoir which flooded approximately 8000 acres of 

habitat along the banks of the Coosawattee River in north Georgia. 

The Georgia Statistical Abstract (1968, 1972) published by the State Highway Department indicated that more than 10,200 miles 

of public roads were constructed from July 1, 1968 to May 12, 1972. 

More recently proposed roadways i ncl ude the Appal achian 400 Highway which will slice through thousands of acres of prime north Georgia habitat. With habitat being lost at such alarming rates, it is 

1 ittle wonder that the International Union for Conservation of Nature 

and Natural Resources (1 974) projects the extinction of an additional 

185 species by the year 2000. 

EXPLOITATION FOR PROFIT AND FOR LOVE 

Commercial Collecting 

The collecting of native plants for sale has been an occupation for some of our people for generations. For others, it is a 

relatively new business. In either case, this type of exploitation 

consists of the coll ecting and transporting of plant materials 

for the expressed purpose of resal e. Commerci a1 col 1 ecting operations 

range in magnitude from one person attempting to scratch out a meager income for himself and his family, to several teams of well-equipped collectors who can easily carry away enough material in a day to 

turn a handsome profit. 

The effects of the commercial collector can be equally as 

devasting as the bulldozer and earthmover. Entire populations of 

Golden seal (Hydrastis canadensis L. ) , Moccasin Flower (Cypripedium acuale Ait. ) ,and Pitcher-plants (sarracenia sp. L. ) have disappeared 

over night as a result of comercial collecting operations. There 
is little question that exploitation of endangered plants by commercial 

collectors can have a significant negative influence on the continued existence of the species. 

Various interests in our native plants by the public have 

led to the unquestionable exploitations of the very object of the 

interest. Accounts of my own life serve well to illustrate this 

exploitation by private citizens. As a small child, f remember 

hei ping - in mi own way - my family dig Genseng (Panax 

L.) and Golden Seal (H. canadensis L. ) near my Ell ijay, Georgia home. As a boy growing up on the banks of the Coosawattee River, I 

was proud to bring home a handful 1 of Yellow-Lady Slippers (C. 

calceolus L. ) to my mother. As a student of botany, I was taught that rare plants should not be collected except in the interest of 

science, but collections have been made to trade to other herbaria. 

And just a few weeks ago a friend came to my house and because he 

knew how much I studied and admired wildflowers, he brouqht me a 

whole bucket full of Large-flowered Trillium (~rillium grandiflorum (Michx. ) Sal isb. ) Final ly, accounts were described to me recently of a wildflower club field-trip to a very small colony of Golden 

Seal (1. canadensis L.); several days later the entire colony had 

di sappeared. 

The point of these ramblings is that regardless of whether 

a species is used to death for medicinal purposes, studied to death 

in the interest of science, or loved to death because of its' 

spectacular beauty, the result is the same: the methodical and 

unnecessary destruction of part of our natural heritage. 

PERSPECTIVE OF THE STATE 

Mandate for Action 

All of the means of exploitation which have previously been discussed with the exception of private collecting have one grave consequence in common. Tremendous numbers of acres of habitat for endangered plants are being lost. Another glaring problem is that 

there is no universal sense of values in and no universal pol icy for 

management of endangered species which exist among environmental 

groups, private industry, federal and state government agencies, or 

the scientific community. 

It is not always apparent that state agencies have a clearcut mandate to protect endangered species and their habitats considering the wide spread habitat destruction which continues to 

occur throughout the southeast. In fact there is seldom a respon- sibility given by legislation to a state agency which does not in 
some way confl ict with responsi bil i ties previously del igated to 

other state agencies, 

The mandate to manage and protect endangered species does exist 

in Georgia in the form of two state laws (The Endangered Wild1 ife 

Act of 1973 and The Wild Flower Preservation Act of 1973). And 

as we would expect, several of Georgia's state agencies have received mandated responsibilities which seem to be in conflict - 

at least philosophically - with the concepts of endangered species 

management and protection, The ultimate success of the endangered species program and other programs which face conf 1 icti ng 

agency phi losophies will depend largely on the cooperative attitudes of all agencies involved in working together openly to 

resolve points of csnfl ict. 

Endangered species programs of many of the southeastern states 

have from their beginnings been low budget operations. In Georgia, less than $30,000 annually has been invested except for substantial expenditures by the Georgia Heritage Trust Program for habitat 

acquisition, 

Much of the information which has been earnpiled to date relating to endangered species in Georgia is the result of a very small 

program staff working with an army of concerned citizens and other 

volunteers. While considerable information does exist, it is 

usually not organized in swh a manner as $0 be either readily useful 

or even available to persons or agencies who inquire after it, Cansquently, l ittl e organized information has reached a point where 

it can be used in the struggle to curtail further destruction of 

endangered species and their habitats, 

First, the state program must be funded at levels where it can 

perform its duties full-time. In general, state programs receive 

financial support when they have a broad base of moral support, 

Therefore, one of the primary objectives of any states' program should 

be to take steps to broaden its base of support. The most efficient way to do this may be through the development of a strong educational program and an efficient method of distributing information. 

There is a critical need for the development of the strongest 

technical assistance program possible. Every single piece of information which exists related to the states' endangered species 

should be compiled and organized in a fom which will allow the program staff to furnish data upon request to user organizations such 

as local or county planners and other state and federal agencies. 

This may be the best means of reducing destruction o$ endangered 
species habitat on a large scale, since it will allow these agencies 

to react to environmentally sensitive areas during early planning 

stages, 

Finally, one of the most urgent needs to assure sound program development is tire inpimentation of an effective and realistic law enforcement effort. In Georgia, as I am sure is the case 

in other states, our law enforcement personnel are among our most 

avid eanservationists, Even among these people who n~rmalty have 

a high level of interest, there are legitimate concerns which have 

been voiced involving law enforcement activities related to endangered plants. The most common objection is that law enforcement personnel would never be able to recognize endangered plants, 

Certainly this Is a problem, but it is a problem with solutions* 

The solution might take the form of one sf several dternatives, 

First, and moot ideally, fn-service training programs can be designed which will teach law enforcement officers how ta recognize 

and identify endangered species sf plants, This may be too idealistic if short term implementation is the goal. In Georgia there 

are 9 80 species sf endangered plants now protected by law, 

An a1 ternative may be tc select targets (species) of concentration and Leach enf~rcement affjcers how to recognize these 

specific ones, The speck selected would Se based upon previous 

evidence sf exploi%alian, Thfs enforcement effort would require 

that enforcement personnel be able to recognize 4 or 5 (possibly as 

many as 10) species of plants. This is not an unmanageable or unrealistic goal. 

A last alternative may be to concentrate our enforcement effort 

on inspections of comercia1 operators who deal in native flora. 

This inspection responsibility could be assigned to qualified botanists 

or to other personnel who have the training and expertise required 

to recognize and Identify the spec?es in question, 

The passage of legislation which calls for strong protective 

measures and managenlent programs for endangered species is legitimate cause for celebration. It does not, however, mean that a 

sslution to $Re problem has been attained, The true test sf the 

effectiveness of any particular piece sf legislation can only be 

measured after the full irnplementatkm sf the programs which it 

authorized, The judgement of the effectiveness sf State endangered species programs as well as the federal endangered species 

program is incomplete, A great deal of psograrn implementation remains ahead, in this regard, two items stand out as absolute newssities to the development of a State program which will achieve 

the goals of endangered species leg?slation, 
First, existing information from all sources (i .e. scientific 

community, private, state and federal agencies) must be organized 

and distributed to a level where it can have an influence on the preservation of habitat. Planning agencies can not possibly construct 

plans in harmony with endangered species habitat if the location of 

that habitat is not known and the conditions to which endangered species are sensitive are not known, 

Second, State endangered species programs must prove themsel ves to be manageabl e. In many instances internal management 

conflict is the reason for the slow developnent of the program. 

Executive management has been bored with philosophical rhetoric 

and the operative staff has been confused and bewildered by such 

things as 1 ists (in Georgia) of over 600 species of the most infrequently encountered species of plants and animals in the state 

which are suspected of being endangered. Both groups must be convinced that rational and realistic - though it may not be conventional - management is possible. 

REFERENCES 

Council on Environ The 

-- of The Council on (U.S. Off ice, Washi ngsn 

Domestic Council, 1974, u 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.). 

Forstal l , Richard, 1975. "Trends in Metropol itan and Non-Metropol i tan 

Growth Since 1970H, presented at Census Bureau - NICHD Conference 

on Population Distribution. 

Smitksonian Institute, 7975. - on Threatened 

PI ant -- sf The United .S. inting Office, 

Washington, D.C.). 

U. S, Army Covps of Engineers, 1973, Statistics (U.S. 

Government Printing Off ice, Washingto 
VENUSt FLUTWP: SURVIVAL THMATS MD POTENTIALS 

Raymond 0. ~la~gL1 

Abstract, -:Road construction ad pine fardng have increased 

the xdailable sites for natural srmds of Venusvflytrap, but drainage projects ad intense collecting in recent years have destroyed 

many populations md severely reduced others, k%ile the flytrap does 

not seem to be in immediate dmger of extinction, it might well be 

considered mnecessarily threatened, as eomercial propagation appears t~ be practical, 

: Dionaea , habitat. 

In 13 years of obsemring, collecting, arad growing Venus "Slytraps (Dionaea 

Ellis], I have seen old populations disappear, new populations become 

estab hished, and advmces in culture methods, 

HABITAT 

The Venus flytrap is endemic to eastern North and Somh Gcnrolina, It grows 

in sandy, humus, acid soil, usually in the company of pines md short compact 

sphagnm, Flytra~ popujations thrive in full sun and partial shade, and will 

tolerate moderately heavy shade, In full sun, partial shading is usually provided 

in the sumer by grases and small herbs. The suitability of a particular spot 

appears to be determined by available mbis ture--populations survive short periods 

of drying or flooding, but generally a moderate mount of ground moisture is 

present year-round, 

Destruction 

The most destructive activity of man to flytrw habitats is the drainage 

accompanying building projects, road construction, agriculture, and silviculture. 

A permanent significant drop in the water level spells the end of the flytrq 

population at a specific site, 

Populations of flytraps also tend to die out as pine fields mature, I do 

not know whether this is because of increased shading, heavy littering by needles, 

or a combination of these changes. 

Although the flytrap is restricted in haitat, it is in many respects a 

"campfollower" species. Most of the places where it grows can be called disturbed 

are=: roadsides, edges sf shallow borrow pits, new pine plantings, ditches 

around ad through older pine plantings, and areas where pine plmtings meet 

ponds or swmps, "Fhus, man destroys old habitats by drainage and creates new 

ones by disturbing land levels, Furthemore, control led burning in pine plantings favors the flytraps, Even though the nudes of flytraps has been shalpiy 

reduced by zoPZecting in the Last decade, 1 wonder if there are not more flytraps now than there were in the days of Sir Walter Raleigh* 

I/ 

- Director of Botany, Carolina BiofogieaP Supply Company, Burlington, N, C. 

33 
COLLECTING 

By North Carolina law anyone may take up any plant on his own land or on 

any private land with signed authorization of the owner or the duly authorized 

agent. 

By state permit we may collect up to 500 Venust flytraps each year, We 

tend to use the same collecting sites year after year, and make it a point to 

operate within the laws of man and of conservation. 

One of the reasons I enjoy my association with Carolina Biological rests 

in the judicious husbandry of collecting sites by the conservation-conscious 

staff. It has been my pleasure to be involved in collecting plants For Carolina 

Biological for 13 years. In all that time I have never seen a population threatened or endangered by the activities of any employee of the Company, Even if 

the collecting habits of Carolina Biological did not rest in pure biological 

appreciation of nature, maintenance of productive sites would appear to be 

simple wisdom for long-term utilization--over-collwting this year would create 

supply problems next year. 

"Dime-Storeft Trade 

Carnivorous plants have novelty and beauty that appeal not only to biologists but also to almost any human being. Collecting activity to fill the 

lapants demand has placed extreme pressure on many carnivorous plants, especially the Venust flytrap. 

There are individuals who place no value on collecting sites and violate 

all rules of conservation. I have personally seen evidence of destructive and 

illegal collections at many locations on state property along highways in 

Brunswick and Pender Counties in North Carolina. Many flytrap populations 

along the roadsides in these counties have been completely removed in wanton 

digging by insensitive, if not biologically ignorant, individuals. Any plantlover viewing the before and after conditions of such ravished sites is struck 

with sadness and anger. Some portions of the gene pool of the flytrap have 

undoubtedly been lost forever. If the laws of North Carolina were enforced 

along the roadsides, there would be no threat to flshut-your-mouth Sam." 

PROPAGATION 

Natural Sites 

Venus1 flytraps have survived in the New Jersey Pine Barrens since 3948 

(Smith, 1972). In recent years we have successfully traazslocated f lytraps within the natural range, and now use the locations as collecting sites. For exmple, ten or eleven years ago we took a number of flytraps from our Burlington 

greenhouse and planted them in Bladen County about 3.5 miles NE of mite Oak 

along a roadside ditch draining into Singletary Creek, (We are not aware of 

any native sites of Venust flytraps within a 20-mile radius.) Although the potential niche was small, the few original plants proliferated and the offspring 

even survived through a minor shift in the niche induced by reworking of the 

drainage area by the Department of Transportation. Almost annually we collect 

75 to 100 flytraps from this little site without diminishing the basic size of 

the colony. Only large plants are taken; small plants and seedlings are left 

in place. The size of the colony is restricted by the immediate enviroment, 
most importmtly by the availability of water, 

Some large sugpliers of flytrap ""a381kbs" indica"C they are meeting theis 

needs frm plats grown on their gwn property, mile this rnv be true, I must 

view it with some doubt as it still appears more economical to purchase "bulbs" 

from local collectors than to propagate them. Of course, the very cheapness of 

"bulbsu in large quantities would indicate that flytraps are not difficult to 

find, and thus not rae, 

Greenhouse 

Reputedly, flytrap seed have brief vi&ili&y (a few months) and seedlings 

have difficulty in becoming established (Smith, 1972). This may be true with 

poorly handled seed, but it has been our eqerience that properly dried asld 

refrigerated seed consistently show good germination and good seedling establishment two years after harvest. With high humidity, elevated temperature, 

and natural greenhouse light, we have produced f lytraps with attractive multileaved rosettes (about 5-7 cm in diameter) in less than a year after sowing 

the seed, 

We have produced f lytrap seed in the greenhouse, but cross-pollination 

by hand was necessasy-, 

Hooft [I9 74) sumarized our experience with vegetative propagation af 

flytraps. men excised healthy petioles with the traps removed are kept in a 

moist, warn and light environment, small buds form in about a month, complete 

leaves with traps form in about two months, and roots are produced as decomposition of the original petioles becomes well advanced. With high humidity, 

elevated temperature, and natural greenhouse light, many of these plantlets 

develop into fine specimens. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Although Venus flytraps have been subjected to increased pressures in 

recent years, the species does not appear to be in kmediate dmger of extinction, as its continuation is encouraged by extensive pine farming within its 

natural range. The ready availability of collected ?fbulbsif indicates that there 

are many wild flytraps; however, many populations have been decimated ad the 

rango and a@tivities of collectors are increasing, Aside from collecting wild 

flytraps, it is now practical to produce these plants from seed and from vegetative propagation, 

LITEMTURE CITED 

Hooft , J, 1974. Vegetative reproduction in flpsaps, Garslixa Tips 37 :5 7-58 a 

Smith, A. P, 1972, Survival and seed production of tsmsplats of Dionaea 

in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. T~rreya 99 3 145- 146, 
THE NAWRAL I, S PRQG 

Gary S. ~aggonerl/ 

Abstract,--The National Bark Service administers two 

programs to preserve nationally sfgnificant natural areas, the 

National Park System and the Natural Landmarks Program* The 

Natural Landmarks Program is a recognition program to encourage 

the voluntary presevvation sf significant natural areas on nonPark Service administered Lands, Natural region studies and 

onsite evaluation studies are conducted by scientists under 

contract to the Service. Sites determined to be nationally 

significant are entered on the National Registry of Natural 

Landmarks by the Secretary of the Inter%sr* 

The protection of endangered plant species through natural area preservation is approached in two different ways by the National Park Service* Most 

people are aware of the preservation efforts of the Service as reflected in 

the National Park System, especially the great natural area parks such as 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Everglades Rational Park in the southeastern United States. These parks are publicly smed and are administered 

by the Service. Thus, there is the highest possible degree sf protection 

afforded to endangered or threatened species indigenous to such parks* The 

Service can control visitor use and access to such habitats, including closure 

to entry for other than official purposesi The purpose of thgs paper, however, 

is to describe the Natural Landmarks Program, a method sf encouraging the 

preservation of natural areas outside the National Park System, 

The Natural Landmarks Program, which was a$minis%rat$vely cseeated by the 

Secretary of the Interior in 1962, is managed by the National Park Service 

pursuant to authority contained in the. Historic Sites Act of 1935, The 

objectives of the Natural Landmarks Program are: I) to encourage the preservation of sites illustrating the geological and ecological character sf the 

United States, 2) to enhance the educational and scientific value of sites 

thus preserved, 3) to strengthen culkurd appreciation of natural histmy, and 

4) to foster a greater concern in the conservation of the h at ion's natural 

heritage, Under this program the Sewice strives to assure the preservation 

of such a variety of nationally significant natural areas that, when considered 

together, they will illustrate the diversity of the country's natural 

environment. 

In contrast to the actual units in the Natlsnal Park System, natural 

landmarks are nationally significant natural areas which are in varying omership, e.g., private, State, Federal, The Natural Landmarks Program is a 

voluntary, recognition progran! and neither amership nor responsibility for 

the area changes with designatfon, Instead, following designation of a 

- l/ Botanist, Division of Natural Landmarks and Theme Studies, National Park 

Service Science Center, National Space Technology Laboratories, Bay St, Louis, 

MS. The author would like to thank Mr, Frank Ugslini, Chief, Division of 

Watural Landmarks and Theme Studies for his valuable review and constructive 

suggestions concerning this paper, 
landmark by the Secretary of the Interior, the owner(s) is notified that his 

property has been determined to he of national significance as a superlative 

example of our natural heritage and he is invited to voluntarily register the 

property, This registration act is a gentleman" agreement made between the 

omer(s) of the landmark and the Secretary of the Interior stipulating that 

the awner(s) intends to preserve the site in such a way as to maintain its 

inherent natural integrity, 'Skris registration act is not legally binding and, 

therefore, long-term preservation of a registered natural landmark is not as 

certain as in a unit of the National Park System, 

Natural landmarks are determined as a result of a fairly thorough selection 

process. The National Park Service is presently conducting studies, typically 

through contracts with universities, of the various natural regions of the 

United States. In the Southeast, these natural regions include the Atlantic 

Coastal Plain, the Gulf Coastal Blain, the Florida Peninsula, the Piedmont, 

the Appalachian Ranges, the Appalachian Plateaus and the Interior Low Plateaus 

(Map 1). Natural region studies describe and classify the important ecosystem 

types om cornunity types occurring within a particular region and then provlde 

an inventory of natural areas which significantly illustrate each ecosytem 

type previously described, Sites are assigned a priority by the natural region 

study team based on a comparative analysis of similar sites, Important factors 

considered in this comparative study include the presence of endangered or 

threatened biota, the naturalness or integrity of the site, the ecological 

diversity of the site, the rarity or threat to the ecosystem type, the relictual 

or distributional significance of the site and other similar factors. In 

addition, each natural region study contains similar information on important 

geological areas. However, this paper emphasizes the ecological portion of the 

Natural Landmarks Program, 

A second phase of study involves the onsite evaluation of sites highly 

recsmended in the natural region study. This onsite evaluation is also 

conducted via contract to a competent scientist in the vicinity of the areas 

to be evaluated, E~agkasis In contracting both the natural region studies and 

the onsite evaluations of ecslsgicab sites is usually given to botanists, 

especially plant ecologists. The onsite evaluation provides more detailed 

information on each site, a recsmended boundary, and a significance statement which briefly states why the site is eonsidered ts be of national 

significance, In most instances, the onsite evaluation studies are conducted 

by a different scdentist thus providing a '%second opinion" as to the relative 

ecological significance sf the site, 

Once bath sf these steps are completed, the Natural Landmarks Program 

staff reviews and verifies the information available, makes additional contacts 

with other scientists and finally makes a determination as to whether or not 

the area appears to qualify as a natural landmark, $he primary test is one of 

national significance* National significance is ascribed to those superlative 

areas which are true, accurate and essentially unspoiled examples sf our 

natural heritage* The Natural Landmarks Program staff presents the best areas 

$0 the Secretary of the LnterioP's Mvisory Board on National Parks, Historic 

Sites, Buildings and Ksauaneats vhick meets biaranuaPLy in Washington, D.C. The 

Advisory Board then makes recsmendatlons to the Secretary with whom rests the 

ultimate authority for the establishment of natural landmarks, 

The National Registry of Natural Landmarks is the official listing of all 

natural landmarks and is published periodically in the Federal . At 

present, there are 421 established natural landmarks with 61 occurring in the 

Southeast. Of these 61, 18 have been established as natural landmarks for 

their geological significance, the remaining 43 are nationally significant 

ecological areas, 

Designation as a natural landmark provides protection primarily as a result of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This Act provides that 

for all federally financed or licensed activities which have a significant 

effect on the environment, an environmental impact statement must be written 

considering, among other things, the occurrence of nationally significant 

natural areas in the selection sf alternatives and mitigating actions. Several 

States acrbss the Nation have comparable laws regarding State-funded or licensed 

projects. The principal protection provided by natural landmark desigfiatlon, 

therefore, is to call attention to areas containing exceptional natural values 

so that intelligent planning and land use decisions can be facilitated and if 

significant natural resources are potentially affected, mitigating actions 

can be taken to minimize the environmental impact, Numerous situations have 

occurred where proposed plans have been significantly altered and even 

abandoned due, at least in part, to the presence of natural landmarks at proposed project sites. 

Formal agreements between the National Park Service and the U,S. Forest 

Service, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management 

concerning the designation of natural landmarks on these public lands have 

created a more permanent form of preservation for these sites. Information 

on registered natural landmarks is provided to each administering agency so 

that the infamation can be incorporated into the management plans for the 

appropriate public land units. Such plans form the basis for the type of 

management permitted. Natural landmark designation requires that the integrity 

of the naturd area be maintained; however, the specific type of use permitted 

is left up to the particular bureau administering the property. In other words, 

various types of use may be pemitted as long as the significant natural values 

of the site are not impaired. Such compatible uses might include nondestructive 

sclentFfic use, interpretation for the public, fishing, nature study, photography, hiking and other basically nonconsumptive uses, 

Registered natural landmarks have also been established on other federal 

lands including those administered by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. 

Harines, U.S, Amy, The Energy Research and Development Administration, Bureau 

of Reclamation, Bureau af Indian Affairs and the U.S, Coast Guard. In most 

instances, the landmark designation brought the special significance of these 

particular sites to the attention of decisionmakers. The registration of 

these sites by the respective omers has helped to insure the preservation of 

several stgnificant natural areas. Registration of natural landmarks on Stateamed lands has also helped to insure the Long-term protection of significant 

areas. In some instances, registered natural landmark status merely provides 

another "layer of protection" to an already recognized natural area but it 

does reflect perhaps the highest level of importance, that of national significance. In many instances, however, designation as a natural landmark provides 

the initial, official recognition of important natural areas, This is especially 

true with sites in private ownership, 
X*ile no absolute legal protection is afforded registered natural landmarks, the recognition factor has proven to be quite effective as a means 

of preservation. The National Park Service is continuously providing information concerning the locations of signiEicant natural areas, regardless of 

ownership, to those public and even some private organizations responsible for 

planning developments. This information is received in a very appreciative 

manner and is relied on heavily in the planning phases of' developrtlent thus 

avoiding the needless destruction of know important natural resources, At 

the present time, the Natural Landmarks Program staff knows of only two 

instances where natural landmarks have been impacted to the point sf losing 

their inherent natural integrity. Further, Land and Water Conservation Fund 

monies have been used in several instances by States to acquire natural 

landmarks for State Natural Areas or other preservation land use categories. 

The Katux-e Conservancy, a private, non-profit, natural area preservation 

organizatioen, alsa has information on exiszlLng ~atural hneri~rsarks as well as 

potential natural landmarks (sites under study) to assist them in setting 

priorities for their natural area acquisition efforts. The record shows that 

the Natural Landmarks Program has been effective in its efforts to encourage 

the preservation of nationally significant natural areas through the process 

sf recognition on both public and private Bands. 

The establishent of natural landmarks depends heavily upon the infornation provided by scientists. The locations of endangered and threatened flora 

and fauna, the occurrences of disjunct and relict plant comunities, the site 

of outstanding representative examples of regionally typicaL ecosystem types, 

and other similar information are all essential to the efficient functioning 

of the Natural Landmarks Program in its efforts to recognize nationally 

significant natural areas. Such information can only best be provided by 

scientists, The Natural Landmarks Program staff is fully aware of the sensitivity of certain types of information including the precise locations of 

endangered and threatened species, the locations of significant fossil deposits, 

the occurrences of outstanding, noncomercial caves, and the like, Such 

information is treated with great care, Advice on the possible limited dispersal of this information is obtained from scientists knowledgeable of the 

area and the potential threats to the site's continuing integrity, It is 

vitally important that information on outstanding natural areas including 

areas harboring endangered or threatened species be made available so that 

development does not unknowingly destroy unique areas needlessly. The efforts 

of the National Park Service in this regard are helping to avoid land use glans 

being made in ignorance of significant ecological information. 

Presently, both the Piedmont and the Atlantic Coastal Plain natural 

region studies involving ecological sites are completed. Two others, the Gulf 

Coastal Plain and the &palachian Plateaus natural region studies are 

scheduled to be completed this summer. The Interior Low Plateaus study has 

recently been contracted with Dr. Elsie Quarterroan, Biology Department, 

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, but the remaining two natural 

region studies involving the Southeast have not yet been contracted. If you 

would like to contribute infomatian regarding a significant natural area, 

please contact the Chief, Division of Natural Landmarks, National Park Service, 

Department sf the Interior, Washington, B,C. 20240. 
Vernon G. ~enmL/ 

onslbSLi Lies for eonserdng dLdlife resources, the 

Ff sh and Wikabft; Service has had an impact on tihe flora of %his 

natdm. OveraJ, 34 million acres nationally ad 1-314 million 

seres in the sc~uT~ewt are mnaged by the %erdee as par% of 

their refuge system, A3.1 ei@t major Wodh bericsn biomes are 

represen%ed by refuge Lmds and, nearly a91 species of aqu8-%ic 

plats cornon to Eor-kh heriea are fswLd on the 12,$ million 

aeres sf wetlads OP the refuge syslem* These lands include 

191 na&:udL areas, $3 wilderness areas and 65 sgeeial sizes 

presemed for ecologied, se%endi%"f c or cd"i;ural v&Lues In 

the soukheast 372,644 acres are in National Hlstorie Lmd-- 

msrks, 41,892 acres are in research natural areas and 418,024 

acres are in wilderness areas, Ruerow endmgered md 

Lhseatened plmts are Porn n these laslds md are protected, 

mrou& grmk-in-si d. progr states have purchased over 

3-1lb raillf on acres ad m e a;~ addi%iona1. 51 dllion acres 

by lease or lieensing agreemnt , 47hese areas have dso plwed 

a role in conservation of plmds, With the passage sf the 

Endagered Species Act sf 1973, the Fish md 'Ffillaife Ser-dcets 

role has eqaylded. The Serdce is now responsible for Listing 

md delistfag, enforcement of prohibited acts, dilizing other 

progrms in furtherance of the purposes of the Act and eon 

fng wi%h all other federal agencies concerning %heir progr 

me Fish and Wildlife Service has assumed a more prominent role recently 

in preserving, maintaining md agi~g endagered flora as a result sf &he 

Endagered Species Act of 1973. mis sae statement is tme to a lesser 

hgree 0% all Lad resource maflagemen% agencies at %he fecleraE le~el and 

potentially even at the state level, Emever, to assue that pmsage of this 

legislation initiated the Serdee" tnv~l~eaent with endmgerei? flora wodd 

OW. I would Like ta emlore the past, present and f.lxlure role of 

ce concerning fZsra in generd and endaurgered flora in pafiicdar, 

me Service is the principd agencrJI tlnroua which the 3r"eaera Covermen% 

carries otl;L its responsibflities for conserving the wiluife resources of 

this nation. One can no% conserve wILaife withoh having a corresponding 

effe~L on the flora because the basic ingre~enl; in wilaife mmageaen"%is 

habitat, which includes all the organic md inorganic elements present* 

A stmbrd cliche used in wildlife management is that one does not 

~tldlif6 but one mmages the habitat, This is sonewhat of an overs 

caL.ion but the emphasis is well placed. To carw f t one step further, 

agemnt of' the hdita-k; nsrmlly naems mmagemea-k. of the vegedakion because 

Endengered Species Specialist, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

17 Executive Park Drive, R, E, , Atlanta, korgia 30329 
y- of "r;e &her ele~ents are fiffficul"ez Sest te i-r_arri-p~LLa%e, A perusal 

of "&he curri~I;J_~~, =3f any ssshesL of wildlife managernen% ';-xs&& sh9~ astrong 

I"cm&ation is; '"crstm~y, 

9ne rsS "ee ns:cr vaya in Mhich "che Service i~~acxs "shefhra of this 

nadion is by rna7agexen-c cf hsds under the Service's csi.t%-..:l, As 3P 30, 

1975, the lands 5.c "Ue Sert-ice's 2ePxge Systez -",=;tale5 3L,13e,463 acres ia; 

563 uq$ts (c. S, Fish a~d >JiEElife Ser~~5e.l PQ~~.-~ /die yfie 3e?~ge 3ys5e3 inzludes 

wa-t;erfewl refuges, water-ipowl production areas, general ~igsat3q~ OirC 

refuges, garie ranges, kig g8re refrj~es, u53L"ie rcxtges r,r,c3 c~j-rdi.;l3~5 913 

ares.:. yfi~;".~ -*=f2gz.~ r~z~- :xi sJLc-~ , ,,L* R- u 5 --ekp -L. 5 - - r*SrZ i$dC-3%L '.d- I-. -in 

., Fish pn4 4i -Wi";-L,f'.- Zpp;-t--2 ~3 r, 

* r- - - - _Cn --,fjLe sc 3-2,se;~~Ser :fie,;i~:: -/ zn9.r~ are &, t~, fkic ZL "e; -)^L 2c in - - - 

89 units (u, S, Fish and Wildlife Service 1976;. 

Vegetation found within the Fefuge Sjs"cm includes species zomEon to 

all eight major North Ameriemi lile zones, or biones, Ln the southeast four 

biomes are involved, i ,e., trc~ical forest, decidxous for-+ ,, u, con2 fero-AS 

forest and grassland, ?4mipuladion of vegeta3bon fcr wildlife m~age~en-1-p 

purposes occurs primarily in three biames, all of ari~ie5 sre ~resen-t in the 

southeast, i ,e,, deciduous forest, coni$"eroirrs forest, md ~rassi~u~~d, These 

three biornes co~prise 23 percent of the total systea-vide acr~age aad 8G 

percent of tiL1 refuges are ?auld in these three 5i~mes. 

KLtbou@ national refuges prctec-i; nany types of xilZlif"e, they play an 

especially iapcrdant role in mmagemen"i;oi waterfcxl, and ?A~t;as, in =nagemen% 

of aqmtic flora, Nearly ail s~ecies of aguetlc plants eemGn to North 

are found on the 12-5 millien acres QE ve-l;%ands enco~passea 'ky the 3efuge 

System (3. S, Fish md WilhdLife Ser-v5ce 1976), 

The acqdsition, leasing acquiring of easements of lands for the 

Refuge System has, in many cases, prevented the irmLnen"r;esdmedisn cr 

conversion to non-zalive ha'bitat of $he lands ic--mlved (Zinresu cf Sport 

fisheries and Wildlife 1975) 

Overall, the major effect ori vegetahion is to provike a di?~ersily, both 

in vegetaLive ty-pes acd successional stages (u~ S, ?iah an& \WiltdLiIe Service 

E376 1 

All refuge lands are cot intensSTbiely mankged; scr~ are retd~ed perpedaally ic their natural st~de Tcr several reasans ir~el~~?-kzq inaccessibility, 

need to protec% endangered species, legal reslrictlms or LG ~aigL8iri 

natwdaess, Wilderness &reas, scientific sixes m-2 naturai are 

cxmpl.es of =eas preserver3 in a ~a-t~ural condilticm ('"3, S, Fish anB Wildlife 

pi ~ennessee, Kentucky, Barth Oa~3Ei~a, South Carolha, P~uerto Rico, an5 

Virgln Islands. 
As mique habitads are des"l;royed dhrorz&out %he Nation, "chose within 

refwes "cke eon greater ililpsr%mce ad- will receive incres,sed protection 

$0 mintain. Weir integrity, Refuge personael will continrae: to analyze 

the need fir additional sites for inclusion in these specid protection 

areas (u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1976). 

At the present -time there are 191 na"Gw& meas, 43 wilderness areas 

and 65 specid sites preserved and protected for their ecological, scientific 

md culturd values (u, Se Fish and WildLiSe Service 1976) * All of these 

type areas can and do play- a role in preserving endmgered plants. 

first obJectisre in %he re cen"e;lby prepared Environment& S-ta%e~aad 

prepared sn Operation of "I;e Rational Wiluife Refuge Systern. was as fol_lo-&;s: 

to preserve, restore md enhmce in their natural ecosystem all species of 

cmimals an8 plmC,s that are endmgered or threatened with becoming eadaurgered 

on lmds of the Nationd Wildlife ReSuge System, h annual goal of lk2 allion 

use &ys for threatened and endangered species was set;, some of which is for 

plmts (u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1976). 

In the southeast, Pelican Island is s Iflational Eistoric Lmdmrk and 

five ares totaling 372,644 acres are listed as NaZ;isnal NEttwd Lan 

These are Wsssaw Island (10,760 acres)--wassaw National Wiluife Refuge in 

Georgia; Beaver Dam Creek Swamp (530 acres)--meeler Nittional Wildlife Refuge 

in Nabma; Big Lake Natural Area (6400 acres)--~ig Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge in Arkansas ; Okefenokee Swaq ( 353,981 acres)--0kefenokee National 

WiWiPe Refuge in hargia; and l&f%e River Sugarberrgr Ma-t-wal kea (973 

acres)--mite River National Wildlife Refuge in Arkansas (u. S. Fish and 

Wilaife Ser~ce 1976) * 

Research Areas fomd on refuges in the sou-theasl total 41,892 

acres in 39 laknits on 15 sgpar&e refuges (~ab~e I). mese ereas Inw~ve 

-regeta;l;ive types as varied as sphamm bog%, cordgrass prairie, swaqs, 

'qes, deciduous woody cover, coniferous woody cover and hardwood-pine 

E~XL~+S~ mere are also 18 Publie Be Natslrd keas OM nine different 

refuge9 in L'ke southeast which Lstd 4514 acre% able 21, 

Wilderness areas totaling 557,670 acres have been designated on 

refuges nationally md 415,824 acres of these are in the souf;heasl in 

eleven areas able 3). In adbition, 7,493,132 acres are proposed in 

Congress and 13,608,826 additional acres are in some stages of review. 

me prop0~a18 include 13 areas in the ssu%&eas% i;o%al_ixag 37,701 ae3aes 

(u, S, Fish and WilUife Serdee 19~6)~ 

With this general baekgromd, I wish do now present sow specific 

exmles, stafiing ad the sow;%hern e~rerilitles of this region, 

an epiphytic orchid only knom to eds% in a few 

relict populations in mne;ulove swaqs in the Everglades and on the southvest 

Florida coast my occur in the Key Deer and Gre& Mite Heron National 

Wildlife Refwes 
z 

*rl 

PI 

h 

rt 

d 

0 

i-l 

5 

Ln 

CU 

r-i 

z 

6 

0 

0 

f-8 

k 

cd 

x 

0 

3 

2 

: 

-9 

r-i 

cd 

U1 

i? 

El 

4, 

rn 

fr7 

LR 

0 

r-i 

u 

b= 

'4 

Clc 

a 

$2 

d 

d 

0 

0 

g 

LiJ 

A 

d 

W .rc :: 

2 

a 

a, 

U 

6 

W 

CG 

-3 

r-i 

5 

3 

ti 

E! cd 

X 

73 

3 

r-i 

m 

H 

k 

cL1 

m 

m 

di 

?G 

U 
Table 3 - Wilderness Areas of the Southeastern 

Wilderness Area (~efuge) SMte Re %luge 

Acres 

Wilderness 

Acres 

Cedar Keys 

Florida Keys 

Key West 

National Key Beer 

Great White Heron 

Island Bay 

Pass age Key 

Pelican Island 

Florida 318 

Florida 

Florida 2,019 

Florida 5,331. 

Florida 1,ggf; 

Florida 28 

Florida 36 

Florida 681-8 

St. Marks Fbori da 

Blackbeard korgis, 

Oke fenokee korgia-Fla. 

Wolf Islmd eorgirz 

Breton Eouisima 

Cape Romain South Carolina 

Totds-Desi~etLed Areas 

Ark~tns as 

mite River Arkmsas 

%ms&owit;zka Fiori da 

J. fa", "~ing" Darling Florida 

Lake Woodruff Florida 

1,818 

915 

14,900 

2,135 

L ,106 

Nonsuit able 
Table 3 (Cont'd) - - - 

Wilderness Area (Refuge) State Re Puge l.;"i&derness 

Acres Acres 

Cedar Island North Carolina 12,526 180 

Matt amus ke t t North Carolina 50,179 590 

Pea Island North Carolina 5,915 1 80 

Swanquarter North Carolina 15,500 9 ,000 

Santee South Carolina 74,343 

Total : Proposed keas bt24 ,980 37 9 '7'01 

This species is listed in the Smithsonian Institution Report as threatened 

and is Listed as endangered by the Florida Comittee on Rare and Endmgered 

Plants and Animals. Althoua not all are listed on horn Zfsts of endangered 

plants, most of the epiphytic orchids in the United States are threatened to 

some extent by land clearing and development coupled with bainage for 

agriculture and residential are as. 

ck, located in the southeastern-mosL portion of Big Pine 

Key, is being considered for inclusf on into the Gre8t mite Heron Refuge, 

This area contains several endangered or threatened pbmt species including 

the following cacti: Cereus robinii, Cereus 

eriophorus var. triacmtha 9 

cubensis. The first 

three are listed as endmgered and the fourth as thredened in the Sdthsonian 

Report. Cereus robinii is also listed as endmgered by- the Florida Co 

on Endangered Plants and Anirnals and this sane group Lislecl prickly ap 

( Cereus var. ) as thredened, One variety of the tree 

cactus, 5. robinii, occurs nowhere else in the world. The prickly pear 

(Opuntia cubensis) is not found on known iisLs of endmgered flora but, 

like 2, robinii, is found nowhere else in the world and should probably be 

listed. Wild Cotton ( hirsutum) , listed as endmgered by the Florida 

Committee, is also found in Cactus Hammock, 

Moving up the eoasl, Lox&atchee National WiZ=ife Eefuge harbors at 

least two species in trouble, he is the Ray fern (~chizae 1, a rare 

fern thouat not to occur outside of "che Everglades, is listed as endaqgered 

by the Sfithsonian Report and as rare by the Florida CoraLi&tee* Indeed, the 

Everglades commity as a whole is rare and endmgered by drainage and 

alteration by mn. The e~rerglades habitat under Federd control provides 

the only sanctuaries into which h ns are not allowed and hx;%hatchee 

comprises one of the last unaltered secLions of the Everglades, These refuge 

lands will continue to harbor the basic plant cs~mmidies of the glades after 
other sections no longer exist, bother plant, the cowhorn orchid or 

butterfly orchid ( ) , listed as threatened by the 

Florida Cc~dttee, %as once wide-spread in Cypress swaqs in South Florida, 

including Laxal?aLchee. It has been aj-rirt;uail;y elidnated by collectors but 

re-introduclion into suitable habit& would be possible. 

&loving northwmd, Hobe Scmd National Wilaife Refuge was one of the 

last places where , mother orchid, was found in 

abmdmce in the wild. mis species is listed as threatened by the Florida 

Cordttee* We-introduction is a real possibility here since adequate 

protection cculd be afforded to get the species reestablished. 

In &srgia, we, of cswse, have the Okefenokee Refuge which contains 

unique pimt comwities. Tae only species 1 am currently aware of that is 

included in endagered listings of flora is pubens, which is listed 

as threatened in the Smithsonim Report. 

The umbrella magnolia (~agnolia tripetala) is found in one known 

location on the Piehont MaLional Wildlife Refuge and is probably worthy of 

thre&ened status, at least at the State level, although not currently listed. 

Other uncomon plats are fomd on Piehont which are not believed to be 

critically threatened at this time, 

In South Carolina, the Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge 

contains several plats worthy of nentioning. The sweet pitcher plant 

) and the pixie moss ( 

ies in the S~tbsoni cies and two 

flava, the yellow lmt, and a hybrid pitcher 

Slava x Sarracenia are also listed in the list 

of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of South Carolina. (unpublished) . 

Nthough the above exmples do not represent a complete cross section 

of the National Wiidlife Refuge System in terris .of states, habitats, etc. , I think they do illustrate the role refuges can and do play in conservation 

of endangered plats, 

hother way that the Fish and Wildlife Service has -played a role in 

conservation sf endmgered p1mts is throu* the Federal grant-in-aid 

program to the sbtesthrough the Pittam-RobeAson Act. Through this 

program states have purchased over 3-1/b million acres and manage an 

additiond 51 million aeres throua leases or Licensing agreements (u. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1973). Although purchased for wildlife, these 

are= hafde aisu plwed an impordmd role in eonserva"cion of plants, in the 

sme way as the National WiLdL%fe Refuge System. I do not have specific 

exmples to offer but I have conplete confidence that nmerous unique and 

threatened species are fomd on these Lands md have benefitted from the 

imnageaen-l; sf 'Ghese Imds 
E2*ZiW$iGEED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 

That brings us do recen-t times md the role of %he Fish and Wilaife 

Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (93rd Congress, 5.1983, 

1973) a The Secretaries of kriedture, Comeree Interior all have 

responsibilities hder the Act, However, &riculture% responsibility is 

Limited to inportation and eqortation of terrestial plants, The other 

Pmedions the art relating to plmts are the responsibility of the 

Fish and WilBiFe Service and the Na%ional mrine Fisheries Servlice. Ro 

agreeneb is presently in effect between these agencies as Lo the division 

of responsibility for plmts. 

The role of the Service for plmw s&er the Act is basically fow-fold. 

First is the job of Pisting md delisting species. Second is the enforcemnt of %he prohibited acts set forth in the Act, mese prohibited acts 

conem iqort and eqort aE Listed species, being a part.y to comercial 

activity in these species in interstate or foreia comeree and violation 

of any proadgated regul~tion regarang the species, 

me "tird role concerns the redewing of all prograns awnistered 

by the Service and utilizing these progr in furtherace of the Purl?oses 

of this Act, The fourth role under the Act is consdtation with all other 

federd agencies to see that they utilize their authorities in furtherance 

of the purposes of' the Act. mese last two roles are sgelled out in 

Section 7 of the Act, It directs aPL Federal agencies to carry out progrms 

for the eonserva-tim sf endmgered hand threatened species listed pursuant 

to the Act and to take neeessaq aetion to insure that actions aulhori zed, 

funded or carried out, by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of 

such specles or resdt in the destruction or adverse modification of 

criticd habitat of such species. 

&o"ceiea: prodsion of "che Act that shod6 be mentioned is that, funds 

made av&LabZe pursumt -to the Lad ad Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 rnw be wed for acquiring imds for endmgered and threa.tened species, 

including plnants* mrsugb. fiscal year 1975 a total of $16-3 million has 

been appropri&ed for acquisitions beneficid to endmgered species. 

Projec-tions for the Fish md Wildrife Service indicate $245 miLlLion are needed 

to aevire kS~,000 acres in the next six years to adequately carry out the 

legislative mmdate of the Endmgered Species Act (U, S. Fish and WilUife 

Serdce 1976). 

At -the present tfae there are no na%fve plats listed as endmgered or 

threatened, Wowever, the Sdthssnim Institution prepared a report as 

authorized by Section 12 of %he Endmgered Species Act, %hat listed over 

3000 plmts 8s endmgered or threatened (~snithsonim InstLtu'eion 1975). 

mis listis swren%ly being given 8 s"I;ELtus review by %he Fish ad, VilUife 

SerAce and a proposed r?fiem&ing to list rnw of these plmls is no% being 

forndated md should be published in the Federal E7egister shor%i.y. 

Listing sf plmts will, of course, place mre enphasis on endmgered 

plmts and thus, the Fish ad VildPiPe Ser~ce will continue to increase 

its role in conserving endmgered md khreatened plmts, 1 think the 
mteriai just presented shows that the Service has played a role in the 

past in conserving plants, althsu& it may have been largely in an insrect 

way, and this role will expand. 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 2975. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System. RL~A-~k, U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washineon, D. C. 4 pp. 

93rd Congress, S. 1983. 1973. Public Law 93-205. 87 Stat, 884-903. 

Srnlthsoniasl 1nstituti.m. 1975. Report on endagered and threatened plant 

species of the United States. House Doement No. 94-51, 94th Congress, 

1st Session, U. S, mvernment Printing Office, Wash., D. C. 200 pp, 

U, S. Fish and Wildlife Ser~ce , i9E5a. Annuizl report of lands under control 

of the U. S, Fish and. WiLdLife Service as of June 30, 1975. Dept. of the 

Interior, Wash., De 6. 20 pp, 

. 197%. 35 years of shared wildlife maagement. Bpt. of the Interior, 

wash., B. C. 36 pp. 

1976. Operation of the national wildlife refuge system. Draft 

EnvironmenL;al StaLenent , Dept . of the Interior. 485 pp. 
A COHERENT APPROACH TO THE PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES 

by Charles M. Parrish 111, Executive Assistant 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

ABSTRACT 

At the State 1 eve1 there are several techniques avai 1 - 

able to ensure protection of endangered plant species, in 

addition to acquisition of natural areas. Actual purchase of habitat is certainly one method, but it is expensive and the 

impact, in terms of the number of species protected is not 

impressive. Other techniques include managing a1 1 stateowned lands for endangered species, educating and assisting 

private 1 andowners and incorporating endangered species criteria as an integral part of A-95 and NEPA environmental 

reviews. In order for these efforts to be effective, a 

systematic and thorough endangered plants inventory, undertaken cooperatively by scientists, ci tizens and government, 

must be vigorously pursued. 

The assigned topic for this discussion was the "Preservation of 

Endangered Plant Species Through Natural Areas", and while that is an 

important tool in state preservation efforts, it is only one of a 

variety of techniques available to us. It becomes an even more limited 

tool if one means by "Preservation of Endangered Plant Species Through 

Natural Areas," the actual acquisition in fee simple of those natural 

areas. The discussi'on which follows will be about the State of Georgia's 

program, what we like to think is a coherent, practical and effective, 

if fledgl i ng program for the protection of endangered plant species. 

In order to protect endangered species, we must protect the habitat, 

and there are a number of tools available to accomplish this objective. 

The most obvious and direct approach to protection of habitat is to 

simply go out and buy it. The Georgia Heritage Trust Program, established 

in 1972 by Governor Jimmy Carter, is a continuing and systematic acquisition program, designed to identify and rank for public acquisition those lands that best exemplify our natural and cultural heritage. The 

program is comprehensive in that all land acquisition--for wildlife 

manageaent areas, parks, historic sites, natural areas, water access, 

scientific and educational purposes, trails--is channelled through the 

Heritage Trust. The result is coordination, expertise and flexibility 

in acquisition heretofore impossible. More importantly multi-purpose 

use of sites is programmed from the beginning, insuring that the public will derive maximum benefit from the site. 

While the presence of endangered species is an important criteria 

in the acquisition of natural areas through the Heritage Trust program, 

the Department also looks for areas that are relatively undisturbed, that 
retain their natural characteristics and contain populations of plants 

and animals worthy of protection for educational and interpretive purposes as well as for the simple enjoyment of man. 

Panola Mountain State Park, a 537-acre park located 18 miles southwest of Atlanta, is such an area. It is characterized by rock outcrops and contains a number of species endemic to granite outcrops such as 

Elf-orpine, ( (Nutt.) Britton). Panola is a conservation park with a system of self-guided nature trails and interpretive 

programs to encourage visitors to l isten, watch, smell, taste and spir- itually touch a small tract of wilderness, 

Through the Heritage Trust Program, the State of Georgia has acquired natural areas in order to protect endangered species in several instances, 

the most notable example of which was the acquisition of the Phillips 

Tract or the "Big Hammock Natural Area," a 750-acre tract of land located 

in Tattnall County in the coastal plain in Georgia. 

The Phillips Tract consists predominantly of a Pleistocene (or older) Sand Ridge on the northeast side of the Al tamaha River flood plain. 

The site contains one of the last remaining undisturbed evergreen broadleaf hammocks along the entire border of the Altamaha River Swamp from 

Tattnall County southeast to McIntosh County. Included in the site is a 

strip of the Altamaha flood plain on the southwest border, and a series 

of drainageways on the northeast side that are dominated by Pond Cypress 

ascendens], Bla ), Ogeechee Lime ( 

nd Wax Myrtle ( 

There are several unique features associated with this sand ridge. 

The forest conbins the largest breeding population of Georgia Plume 

(Elliottia racemosa) known to exist, and the largest population or stand 

of Myrtle 0 ) known to occur in the interior of 

Georgia (Bo 

The Georgia Plume is presently found in only eight counties in 

the State of Geor ia. The plant is a primitive member of the Heath 

Family (Erecaceae with its closest relatives found in Japan (Wood, 1961). 

It grows commonly as a shrub or small tree and requires a sandy, welldrained soil. Attempts at transplanting this species for the horticultural trade have been quite unsuccessful for over a decade since the plant 

can be propagated only rarely by seed, and with some difficulty by root 

sprouts 

The most important aspect of this tract of land is that it contains 

more plants of Georgia Plume than all the other known populations combined. These plants, which inhabit more than 400 acres in this site, 

consistently produce more seed than other known populations, a possible 

reflection of the genetic variability and vitality of the populations. This site is truly aone-of-a-kind, last-of-its-kind, which must be protected, 
The myrtle oak ( ) is a characteristic shrubtree of 

the Sand Pine-Scrub forest of the Central Highlands Region of Florida 

(Laessle, 1958). It has a sporadic distribution almost entirely limited to 

the Lower Coastal Plain in Georgia where it occurs on marine bars and alluvial sand hammocks of Pleistocene age (Bozeman, 1971). This stand of myrtle 

oak represents the most inland and most extensive population in the Atlantic 

Coastal Plain, north of Florida and could very well be a Pleistocene relic. 

From the State perspective, management of this site for public education and enjoyment, whi le preserving and enhancing the resources for 

which it was a~quired~represents a tremendous challenge. Currently, use 

of the area is limited to educational and research activities with visits 

by various universities and call eges al lowed. 

Obviously, acquisition of habitat is the most effective means of protection. Management for preservation is ensured. But what are the limitations of this approach? The answer is largely told in do1 lars and cents 

and the story is exemplified by the Georgia Heritage Trust Program. In 

1973, at the program's inception, the Georgia General Assembly appropri- ated $12.5 million for the Heritage Trust and we maintained that an 

appropriation of that magnitude was needed for at least ten years in 

order to preserve endangered pieces of Georgias natural and cultural 

legacy. In 1974 the appropriation to Heritage Trust was $538,449; in 

1975, $590,000; and in 1976 $50,000. Economic hard times hit State 

government severely. The Department of Natural Resources suffered budget 

cuts of 1.7 million in FY 1976. We bit the bullet, but clearly the 

message was that many programs would suffer. This was true for many Departmental programs of long-standing as well as for newer and more 

tentative programs such as Endangered Species Protection. 

Even in times of economic growth and we1 1 -bed ng , a sing1 e-minded 

approach to protection of endangered species through acquisition would 

likely fail. There are always limited resources and competing demands. 

Pol i tical support for a large number of single-purpose acquisitions would 

be unl i kely, and, the management problems created by a large number of 

sites required to protect an endangered or threatened species would be 

awesome. Even if the State selected sites for maximum density, the 

impact in terms of the number of species protected would not be that 

impressive. 

We have found, however, that in thinking about the problems I have 

enumerated above that there are workable a1 ternatives to outright purchase which will result in an effective and vital endangered species 

program in Georgia. 

Certainly, the first task is to ensure that protection of endangered 

plant species is a criteria in all purchase and management of stateowned land. On property already owned by the State we are adopting 

management objectives emphasizing a conscious appl ication of the principles of management for the protection of endangered species. 
It was through our Systems Planning and Master Planning efforts that 

we discovered the need to intensify management of state-owned land for 

protection of endangered species. We have just completed a Parks and Historic Sites System Plan which identified a need to assess the presence of 

rare or endangered species on all property--that property proposed for 

acquisition and that already in State ownership. General Development Plans, 

developed for each park in the State system, indicate the actual physical 

location of these areas on the park maps. These sites are then designated 

as "Special Management Areas," and detai 1 ed prescriptions for management 

are drawn up and given to the Park Superintendents to guide their protection efforts. Endangered species experts are prepared to go to these 

sites to sensitize and train on-site managers to the principles of 

management for protection of rare and endangered species located in their 

parks. At Reed Bingham State Park, the Superintendent recently burned a 

pitcher plant bog. Fortunately, in this case, he took the appropriate 

action. But it illustrated for us the vital need to educate some fifty 

Park Superintendents 1 ocated a1 1 over the State, about proper management 

techniques for endangered species protection. 

We anticipate Systems Plans for Wild1 ife Management Areas and Natural 

Areas, which wi 11 incorporate among their objectives emphasi s on preservation of endangered species. General Development Plans, undertaken for 

each site will, as in the case of Parks, provide prescriptions for Special 

Management Areas. 

Wild1 ife Management Areas represent real opportunities for special 

management. Generally, wild1 ife management areas are large tracts of land 

often containing a number of natural areas deserving special treatment. 

A good example of this kind of opportunity is the Lewis Island Tract 

on the A1 tamaha River in McIntosh County. This 5,500-acre tract containing 

the only known stand of virgin cypress in the State is part of the 18,000- 

acre A1 tamaha Waterfowl Management Area. In the future, in addition to 

being managed for waterfowl , it wi 11 represent an important natural and 

interpretive area. 

With the know1 edge that we can never hope to acquire a1 1 of the 

habitat necessary to protect threatened or endangered species we will 

continue to acquire critical pieces of land, like the Phillip's Tract 

and Lewis Island, and to manage our own land with protection as a major 

objective. 

But a second thrust, and perhaps an even more important one in the 

long term, involves our work with landowners across the State. In order 

to be truly effective, the State must work closely,advising and assisting 

private landowners about the presence and proper management of endangercd 

plant species on their property. That, in turn, necessitates a well 

pub1 icized and free exchange of information among scientists, landowners, 
and the pub1 ic in general in order to identify and locate species that 

warrant protection. 

A dramatic example of the possibilities of this cooperative approach 

can be illustrated by our work with a major timber company on the Altamaha 

River in Southeast Georgia. The area under study involves 250,000 acres 

of land and 64 river miles along the A1 tamaha River. The property contains 

representatives of approximately 12% of the plants and animals on the State 

list of endangered or threatened species. We have already identified nine 

species of animals that are on the State list of endangered animals including the Short-Nosed Sturgeon, the A1 l igator, the Eastern Brown Pel ican, 

and the Southern Bald Eagle, among others, There are I i kewise at least 

ten endangered plants that we have either seen or suspect because of 

appropriate habitat including Pond Spice i it sea aestivalis) and Swamp 

Holly ( Our job is to i areas for special 

management and to propose the form that the special management should 

take; whether it be buffer strands along the shoreline or natural areas 

inland from the river that should not be timbered, or which should be 

burned, or which need some kind of special prescription, It is very 

1 ikely that some of the shoreline buffer strands will be donated to the 

State to manage. However, we are hopeful that some of the inland sites 

which will remain in private ownership will be managed by prescriptions 

prepared by State botanists and biologists. 

Another example of a request for assistance involved a private industry with headquarters on the Chattahoochee River. They owned habitat 

appropriate for several endangered plant species and contacted the 

Department for assistance in establ ishing a natural wildf f ower garden 

emphasizing rare or endangered plants. The property consists of 70 acres 

of upland hardwood that will probably support pink and yellow lady slippers 

and a variety of rhododendrons, 

In order for the State to take advantage of these opportunities and 

in order for us to initiate cooperation with landowners, we must do 

several things. First, we must maintain a diligent and continuing program 

to inventory endangered species. Mi thin the Department of Natural Resources 

we have two major programs that address this need. The Natural Areas Unit, 

through informati on made avai lab1 e by the State Resources Assessment Program (including topographic maps, soils and vegetation maps and aerial 

photographs) identified those environments where populations of endangered species are likely to occur. Using that information and following leads 

provided by fellow botanists and concerned citizens, the Natural Areas 

Unit conducts field inspections of each site, 

A file is maintained on each site, Such an inventory is criticd 

for identifying populations of endangered species that might be destroyed 

by various development projects. One of the most critical tasks before 

us now is developing the capability to work with developers in the planning stages of their projects by assisting them in the development of alternatives 

that lessen the impact of human expansion on endangered species. A good example 

of the need for this capability is the Appalachian Highway Project or 

Georgia 400, a development highway proposed for North Georgia. 
In the fall of 1975, the Department of Natural Resources reviewed 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this project. Five 

alternative routes were described in the Draft EIS and a list of 

endangered plants accompanied each alternative. They were not located 

on a map and our inventory was not adequate to assess the accuracy of 

the list. But the real issue here is that we should have been looking 

at the problem long before, when the alternatives were being formulated. 

With an adequate inventory we could have recommended routes that would 

have avoided critical colonies of endangered species. We must develop 

that capabif idy, 

Our greatest need in Georgia now is to concentrate our efforts on 

a systematic inventory of endangered plants in our State. The Department, through its environmental review of Federally-supported projects 

that occur in Georgia, can have a tremendous impact on protection of 

endangered species. But we must know where they are. Ue must begin 

to seek more info~maki~~ and assistance from scientists and we must 

encourage the public at large to share information. 

In the context of our review of federally assisted projects in the 

State, we must encourage major land-holding Federal agencies in our 

State, such as the U. S. Forest Service, to identify and designate 

special management areas within the national forests. While management of the Chattahoochee National Forest seems to be increasingly 

s~rmpathetic to these kinds of concerns, it is our duty as the state 

natural resources agency to assist them in data-gathering and to advise 

them about special management for protection of endangered species. 

Section 404 of PL 92-500 mandated that the Federal government 

issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into 

navigable waters. This three-phased program, administered by the U. S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, will eventual ly require permits for any dredging 

activities on any stream or wetland in the entire State. As you know, 

coastal and inland wetlands represent niches that are often rich with 

endangered or endemic species. This program represents a real opportunity to protect endangered species through our review process. 

But the entire program has been threatened in the House by the 

introduction of the Breaux Amendment to H.R. 9560, which would redefine 

navigable waters to include only those waters that support interstate 

or foreign commerce. If we lose the 404 program, we lose a major tool 

for protecting endangered species. 

Another major thrust of our efforts must be toward implementing 

the Federal Endangered Species Act, which reauired that once a species 

is identified as endangered, a management plan must be established to 

restore the species. We must use publicly owned lands in that effort 

and we must acquire public lands with that objective in mind. As a 

small part of that effort, the Natural Areas Unit is establishing a 

catalog of habitats available for transplantinq. The physical 
s 

0 

-I- 

$-, 

ccl 

s 

'I5 

L= 

L 0s 

0 

g: *I0 V) 

V) 5g *E 

L a, 

ma. 

Sa, t, a *I- L 'IE v 34- 

CU 0% 

a,n o 

>V)s 

a Or- v 1: C, *Is La, rd an 

3-S: I3 QW L3 - a, 

29- mw r-mas 

LLwa 

a a, a, mS V) - s Luaoa 

w 3.1- 

s v 

a, C, *ImuC,- 

a- 

,C *r 

+ 3 

a, aJ 

L 3 

a 

s V) a, 

a,= ofL 

3 ; fj 

LC C, a, 

st' 

C, o 

a, a,C, 

L 0 

a, L 1: $2 

0 w+' 

s 

a+-, 

s C, a 

a 3 r 

3 a, 

L 3 

3 1: 0 +-'A= 

a, 

mu 

0 s C, a 

WC, 

.s 0 

a a, C,C, 

V) 0 

L L a, n 

w 

s 0 3 C, 

C,C, 

V) s 3 a 

E 3 

a, a, 

z 3 
THE STATE NWTU HERITAGE PROGW4S 

Robert M. chipleyl/ 

astract,--The Nature Conservancy has est&lished the State 

Natural Heritage Programs to create a systematic process for the 

management and analysis of ecological data on the elements of natural diversity, which include plane cornunity types, aquatic types, 

and endangered, threatened and rare flora and fauna, The progrms 

are conducted in cooperation with an agency sf the state government, In the Southeast, progrms are currently undernay in North 

Causlina, $ou-%3-r Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, and West Virginia, 

There- are scientific, practical, an2 esaetic reasons for wanting to preserve genetic diversity, The purpose of this brief presentation is to point 

out at, in the case of endagered plats, we can at least came close to this 

goal, if the task is approached systematically, 

Since endangered plants are rarities, frequently confined to unusual or 

marginal hiibitats, this means that tkis ten percent sf the flora occupies a 

very li~ted am~unt of grola-nd, probably Less than one percent sf the lad mass 

CJe~ins 19752 , A ~nimm system of preserves, if accurately aimed at this 

fraction of Bmdscape, could probisbly perpetuate most sf these species, 

The prsbla becomes, then, the systematic identification aid protection of the 

haitats mst critical for this fraction sf the Bnrerican flora, 

At The Nature Conservancy, our approach teward the problem of identification iand protection of critical haltats has been to create what we term 

the State Natural &ritage Prsgranas, At present, five of our eight program 

are in the Ssuthast, so we have a particular interest in and comitment to 

this part af the count~. The. states in which we currently have ongoing or 

a~ng prsgrms are NorW% Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missisad West Virginia, The stated purpose of the program is to preserve, 

in tbe greatest degree poss&le, the spektrm of natural diversity which 

exists in the state. The prsgrms are generally conducted mder a one-year 

contract or mca;morandwn 0% agreement with an appropriate state agency, such as 

the state department of conservatisra, At the end of one year, a comprehensive systm f the accession, mmagemnt md analysis of ecsLogicaH data is 

ddiywed tta state, 

The Keritage Program generally consists of four phases, These are (1) 

Program Development, (2) Lhe Pilot Inventory, (3) Protection Elanning and 

(4) Program Continuation md Implementation, 

Progrm Development involves hiring and training the pragrm staff, setting up the office in rhe state, creating a classification system of what we 

tern the elements sf diversity, ad installing the data m~~agement apparatus, 

The Last kds points are the core of the methodology, and will be further elaborated, 

l/ -- Staff Ecologist, State Natural Heritage Prsgxms, The Nature Censervmcy, 

Arlington, Va, 
Classification System 

Tire purpose of the classification system is to create a liseing of what 

we tern the elements of natural diversity occurring in the state, As defined 

by the program, an element is a natural feature of particular interest, either 

because it is mique or endangered witl.Lin the state or nationally (such as 

the Tennessee Cone Flower) or because it represents an importmt type (such 

as the Cypress-Tupelo Swamp) . The purpose of the classification system is 

to identify, define, md catalog these elements by class, This structure 

foms the basis for the orderly gathering of information during the inventory phase of the progrm, Initially, the classificafiion system will involve 

a hierarchical ordering of plant cornunities and aquatic types, and a listing 

of special species (including those which are endangered, threatened, rare, 

endemic, peripheral, or othemise of particular concern and interest) , The 

system may be expmded to include geological, historical, archeological, and 

other classes of elements. In addition, as further infomation becomes available, new elements may be added mder each. class, and some existing elements 

may be redefined, broadened, or subdivitted. The classification is completed 

with the input of in-state experk, previous scientific work and already existing national and state classificatjon schemes, The underlying assmption 

of the classification is that, if we can locate protected exmples of each 

of the described types and species, we will have gone a long way toward preserving tihe natural diversity of the state. 

Data. 

Information is collected and stored on an element-by-element rather than 

site-by-site basis. The data management sptem consists of two components: 

the manual files and the comp232ter-ass2steil Lowst Comon Denominator File. 

The atensi~e manual fi3es contain infomation on each of the elments in 

the classification, map Piles for maintaining and displaying the localfties 

of the various elements, aerial photos, and other pertinent information, The 

computer-assisted Lowest Cornan Denominator Element File is designed to incorporate efficiently the minimum mount of data necessary for analysis of 

the location and characteristics of occurrences of the elements, and direct 

the user to the manual files only if further information is desired. Minimum data includes the name of the area on which the element is found and its 

geographical coordinates, the name of the owners and the protection status 

of the area, the size, and items of general description. This information can 

be accessed in any of several combinations, depending on the needs of the 

system-user. 

This phase of the program involves the actual collection of data on the 

elements described in the classification, axld the entry of this data into the 

data management system, Initially leads are generated by reviewing earlier 

inventories, the general literature, consulting with experts, and investigating 

museurn collections. As these Leads are generated, a preliminary analysis will 

guide the program staff toward information gaps, that is, the types of elements 

for which we have little or no data. Using this "gap analysis" we will be 

&le to concentrate our data gathering an the types for tJhich we have the least 

information. At some point in the program, when existing information has been 

largely exhausted, we can more efficiently target our priorities for conducting 

in-depth field surveys. 
The major outcome qf this task is the setting into motion of the datagaahering process. The infomation flow will be started and established for 

the continuing operations of the program. 

PROTECTION PLMNING 

This phase of the program involves planning for the protection of the 

e~ologieaL elements identified during the inventory, This phase is done independently of the first two phases of the program in that it can be completed 

during the early stages of the program or near the end of the pilot inventory. 

The major product of this phase will be the survey of existing and potential 

protective mechanisms for ecological resources and natural areas in the state. 

CONTINUATION WNB LrnLErnNTATION 

By the end of the contract period, the state should have at its disposal 

a continuous process of ecological inventory, data management, and protection 

planning for the preservation of its natural heritage. At this point, the 

Conservancy's role changes in scope from an operational to an advisory capacity. 

The Conservancy will ensure that the transition to state management will be 

a smooth one, and that any further improvements in methods and technology will 

be made available to the state. 

APPLICATIONS OF I 

The inventory data can be analyzed and applied toward several uses, depending on the needs of the data requestor, For preservation purposes, we may 

wish to know which natural elements are the rarest and most vulnerialale in the 

state; we therefore ask the system to tabulate the n er of reported occurrences for given elements, and to tell us whether or not they occur on protected sites, We may then choose the element, such as m endangered plant, 

with the fewest or no reported occurrences on protected lands as a prime candidate for the limited funds at our disposal. 

A further application will be in the field of environmental impact assesment, long hindered by a lack of state, regional, or national perspective. The 

criticality or significance of my individual site (or alterations to the site) 

cannot be judged by reference to that site alone. If, however, comparable 

data exists on many sites, systems, or features within the state, one can gain 

the perspective necessary for estimating the relative significance sf any single site. The Heritage system will provide the structure ad methodology for 

collecting the standardized data by which such comparisons and evaluations can 

be made. 

Mother use will be for planing purposes. A state or murricipal agency 

may wish to know which areas are ecologically significant within a certain district; by use of overlays, the system can display ecslogical infomation in 

relation to other land-use parmeters such as agriculture, corridors, and urban districts, 

One important feature of the computer system is its flexibility* He have 

practically no set analysis patterns but can rather adjust to fit the needs 

of the system-user. In other words, if a request is made by a valid user for 

data on a particular species, we will be able to produce a map of the locations 

for the species, and a print-out with the general description, size, ad owner- 
ship of each site where it occurs, when the site was last surveyed, the 

source of lead for each occurrence, or any combination of these, If information is requested on a county-by-county or grid basis, the computer is able 

to sort out the requested data. The option exists within the system for 

suppressing Locality infomation. 

It is important tonote that, in the State Natural Heritage Programs, 

the most important product is the process itself, Our goal is to estalish 

a cooperative effort between the public and private sectors for the identification and protection of those areas which best represent the state's natural 

heritageLLTEWTUE CITED 

Jenkins, R. E, 1975. Endangered plant species: a soluble ecological 

problem, TNC News 25(4): 28-21. 
NATUWAL AUAS IN THE APPAMCKIAN SECTION REGISTEWD WITH 

Tm SOCIETY OF RIGAN FOWSTERS 

Keith A, Argow-- l/ 

The Natural Areas program of the Society of herican Foresters includes 

the continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska. The program is administered by geographic sections recognized within the SAF, lvly coments today 

are directed towards the Appalachian Section, which in our context includes 

Virginia and North and South Carolina, Since this is a conference on endangered plants throughout the Southeastern U.S,, it should be noted that similer SAF pragrans are operative in the Tennessee-Kentucky section, the Florida 

section, the Georgia-Alabama section, and the Gulf States section, 

In addition it should be noted that the SAP Natural Areas syskem is 

founded upon forest types, as might be expected with a professional forestry 

society. The progrm is based upon the publication Forest -- of North 

America published in 1954 by the SAF, This descriptive guide is in the process of revision now; however, we anticipate few major changes in type classifications, Although established to protect forest types, SAF Natural Areas 

also protect the flora and fauna inherent in their ecosystems, 

The forests of Virginia and North and South Carolina are diverse, They 

range from the spruce-fir caps of the Smokies to the sand live oak-cabbage 

palmetto forests of the South Carolina coastal plains. Three physiographical 

zones are recognized: Appalachian Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plains. 

Within these three States at least 55 separate forest types occur, This number may be higher due to the possibility that some southern forest types not 

included in the tally do extend into the coastal plain and some central forest 

types extend east into Virginia and North Carolina. The SAF has registered a 

total of 47 natural areas in the section encompassing some 42 forest types. 

A list of forest cover types occurring in SAF Natural Areas in the Appalachian 

Section is appended to this paper, 

Although at first glance our system would appear to be quite complete, 

13 forest types are not represented at all. Noteworthy among the omissions 

are sugar maple, eastern red cedar, yellow-poplar (pure), longleaf pine, 

Virginia pine, and pondcypress, 

Nineteen forest types are represented only once, Armong this group are 

black cherry, red spruce (pure), scarlet oak, black locust, white oak, 

northern red oak, shortleaf pine-oak, and water tupelo, 

&'The author is Associate Professor of Forestry at Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State Universiq and is ehaiman of the Natural Areas Cornittee 

for the Appalachian Section of the Society of American Foresters, 
The SAF Natural Areas system has been established primarily for research 

purposes. They are "control areas," tracts of land where nature is allowed 

to take its own course. They provide useful silvicultural and other information about what happens in southeastern forest types when they are unmnaged. 

By comparing data, we can gage the influence and results of forestry management practices relative to natural ecosystems. 

The goal of the Appalachian Section Natural Areas cornittee is to reserve two representations of each type occurring in the section. Some 

species which have a wide range and exhibit regional and site vaxdatione 

will require multiple representations within the system to be adequately 

represented (i.e., loblolly pine). 

History of SAF Appalachian Natural Areas 

The first tract of land in the Appalachian Section to be set aside for 

a natural area was Black Mountain, North Carolina. A part of the Pisgah 

National Forest, this 1,400-acre natural area on the east slope of &unt 

Mitchell was established by the U.S. Forest Sewice in 1933. Ramsey's Draft 

and Little Laurel Run--both on the George Washington National Forest in 

Virginia--followed in 1935 and 1937, respectively. 

When the committee on natural areas was organized by the president of 

the SAF in 1947, the first mechanisms were established for SAF registration 

of natural areas, By 1949 the three foregoing U.S. Forest Service Natural 

Areas, plus two more areas established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

became a nucleus of the SAF Natural Areas within the Appalachian Section. 

In the National committee's first report, Chairman John F. Shanklin 

noted that the program had been initiated upon the recognition by the SAF 

Division of Silviculture that practicing foresters needed a "more comprehensive knowledge of natural developments within virgin forest associations.'' 

Shanklin also noted that the action establishing the Committee on Natural 

Areas came "very late in our Nation's forest development history'' and effective action was long overdue. 

It became apparent to the new committee that the southern region of the 

United States was in most need of attention. To this end a grant was secured 

from Resources for the Future, Inc., to conduct a suwey for potential natural 

areas. F. H. Eyre was appointed project leader and conducted an extensive 

field reconnaisance. In 1960 the "Suwey of Proposed Natural, Forest Areas 

in the Southeastt' was published by the SAF. 

Aside from the Eyre report, the SAF has not conducted extensive inventories of natural ecosystems per see These projects, which can be quite 

extensive and expensive, are left to State agencies, universities, and 

national organizations such as the natural heritage invent07 program con- 
ducted by the Nature Conservancy. The intent of the SAF Natural Area program is to give recognition through registration of significant natural 

tracts, 

The Ssciety of American Foresters does not seek ownership of the areas 

it registers. In fact, the SAF Natural Area program is entirely a voluntary 

registration which can be canceled by either party rather readily. More 

permanent pro tec tioa is encouraged through fomal ac tian by private landowners in designating public lands as research natural areas, botani~al 

areas, etc, If pubric ownership or some other form of protection of a natural area is desirable, then the assistance of a public agency or the Nature 

GonservCancy is sought, A particular aelrvantage in utilizing the Nature Consemancy is that it maximizes the tax benefits to the private Landowner while 

at the same time preseming the area on the best terms available, 

Ahinis tration of SAF Natural Areas 

Basic responsibility for administering a natural area lies with the 

landowner. Most public agencies have ample regulations to accomplish this. 

Some conflicts do arise however in the area of public use, principally recreation, For this reason it is recomended that SAF Natural Areas not be 

designated on recreation use maps. If they are, a paragraph describing their 

purpose and the potential damage due to overuse is encouraged on the backside 

of the map, 

Natural areas are not extensively signed. There is a small SAF boundary 

marker intended for use only on the main access routes. Boundary painting 

may be appropriate in areas where adjacent lands are under extensive management, Moreover, little publicity is recomended for these areas, 

A current listing of natural aregs including maps and information relative to ongoing research, etc, , is maintained by the national office of the 

Society of American Foresters in Bethesda, Maryland. Many chapters also 

maintain current lists. Here in the Appalachian Section, we publish the 

Appalachian Natural Areas Directory. This publication carries maps, descriptisns, and pertinent infomation for each natural area registered within the 

three States. It is intended as a method of communicating this information 

to forest researchers and others who have reason to be interested in the 

natural area sys tern, 

The Natural Areas Cornittee of the Appalachian Section is hopeful that 

at least some endangered plants are already represented in our growing natural areas system, We welcome your suggestions on expansion and look forward 

to working with you, 

Attachment: 

1, Appalachian Natural Areas Bibliography, 

2, Su-annra~ of Forest Zqypes Represented in Appalachian Section Natural 

Areas, 1976, 
APPAMCWIAN SECTION, SAF 

Argow, Keith A. 1969. Project virgin: An action program for natural areas 

in the SAF :".ppal,acgrlan Section, J, For, $7' :347-349, 

Buckman, Robert E., and Richard L. Quintus. 1972. Natural areas of the 

society of herican foresters. SkF. Betiicsda, Xd. 38 p. 

Eyre, F. H. 1460. Survey of proposed forest natural areas in the southeast society of American foresters, Bethcsda, MdI 40 p, 

Federal Gorm~~i ttee on Research Natural Areas, 1968, A directory sf research 

natural ar2as on Federal lands of the United States of America, USGPO, 

Washin~ton, 129 p, 

Franklin, 2e.cr-j F. 9. 1972. Federal research natural areas in Oregon 

and Washington, U,S, For, Serve Portland, 

Ohmann, Lewis 3. 1375. Vegetation data collection in temperate forest 

research natural areas, U,S, For, Serv, St, Paul, Minn, 35 p, 

Rornancier, Robert M, i974. Nat:itra& area progy-ams. J, For, 72~37-42. 
APPALACHIAN SECTION NATIJML AREAS - 1976 

Sumary of Forest Types Represented 

VIRGINLA 

1, Charles C, Steirly 

2. Chestnut Ridge 

3. Chinco teague 

4. Clinch Mountain 

5. Holiday Creek 

6, Lick Creek 

7, Little Laurel Run 

8. Mount Rogers 

9. Mountain Lake 

10. Draft 

SAF 102 Baldcypress - water tupelo, 19 ac, 

SAF 41 Scarlet oak, 18 ac, 

SAF 87 Sweetgum - yellow-poplar, 6 ac. 

SAF 87 Lobfolly pine - hardwood, 135 ac, 

Swamp and marshy area, 15 ac. 

SAF 29 Black cherry, 23 ac, 

SAF 75 Shortleaf pine, 2 ac. 

SAF 77 Shortleaf - Virginia pine, 17.5 ac, 

SAF 87 Sweetgum - yellow-poplar, 10.5 ac. 

SAF 23 Hemlock, 30 ac. 

SAF 58 Yellow-poplar - hemlock, 30 ac. 

SAF 59 Yellow-poplar - white oak - no. 

red oak, 430 ac. 

SAP 78 Virginia pine - southern red oak, 

180 ac. 

SAF 21 White pine, 45 ac. 

SAF 23 Hemlock, 127 ac. 

SAF 44 Chestnut oak, 445 ac. 

'SAF 45 Pitch pine, 89 ac. 

SAF 59 Yellow-poplar - white oak - no. 

red oak, 62 ac. 

Barren and brush, 1,324 ac. 

SAF 25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch, 

820 ac. 

SAF 34 Red spruce - Fraser fir, 332 ac. 

Meadow grass and fern, 148 ac. 

SAF 23 Hemlock, 75 ac. 

SAF 24 Hemlock - yellow birch, 100 ac. 

SAF 30 Red spruce - yellow birch, 60 ac. 

SAF 43 Bear oak, 935 ac. 

SAF 54 No. red oak - basswood - white ash, 

433 ac, 

SAF 23 Hemlock, 177 ac. 

SAF 25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch, 

89 ac, 

SAF 44 Chestnut oak, 442 ac, 
16, (continued) SAF 45 Pitch pine, 26 ac, 

SAF 52 mite oak - red oak - hickory, 

991 ac, 

SAF 55 Northern red oak, 169 ac, 

SAP 59 Yellow-poplar - white oak - no, 

red oak, 67 ace 

13, Swift Creek 

I&, (I) Mountain 

17, (2) Chswan River 

18, (3) 

19, (4) Great Lake 

20, (5) 

21, (6) Hill Forest 

SAF 52 mite oak - red oak - hickory, 27 ace 

SAF 87 Sweetgum - yellow-poplar, 23 ac, 

SAF 58 Yellow-poplar - white oak - no, red 

oak, 20 ac, 

Brush, 2 ac, 

SAF 52 mite oak, 17 ace 

SAF 61 River birch - sycrtmare, 5 ac. 

SAF 81 Loblolly pine, 26 ac. 

SAP 82 hblokly pine - hardwood, LO ac, 

SAF 40 Post oak - black oak, 16 ace 

SAF 93 Hackberq - herican elm - green ash, 

38 ace 

NOXTH CAROLINA 

SAF 17 Pine cherry-, 13 ac, 

SAF 25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch, 

126 ae, 

SAF 34 Red spruce - Fraser fir, 542 ac, 

SAP 44 Chestnut oak, 229 ace 

SAF 52 White oak - red oak - hickory, 419 ac. 

SAF $02 Baldcypress, LO ac, 

SAF 202 Baldcypress - water tupelo, 49 ac. 

SAF 263 Water tupelo, 15 ac, 

SAF 52 mite oak - red oak - hickory, 27 ac, 

SAF 81 bblolly pine, 59 ace 

SAF 82 hblslly pine - hardwood, 57 ace 

SAP 87 Sweetgum - yellow-poplar, 8 ace 

SAP 98 Pond pine, 60 as, 

SAF 23 Hemlock, 1 ae, 

SAF 44 Chestnut oak, 5 ac, 

SAF 82 bbloLLy pine - hardwood, 14 ac, 

SAF 75 Shortleaf pine, 8 ac, 

Buffer zone, I ace 
22, (1) SAF 102 Baldcypress, 20 ac, 

SAF 104 Sweetbay - swamp tupelo - red maple, 

13 ac, 

SAF 22 White pine - hemlock, 72 ac, 

SAF 59 Yellow-poplar - white oak - no, 

red oak, 90 ac, 

24, 99) Little Santeelah SAF 23 Hemlock, 580 ac, 

SAF 59 Yellow-poplar - white - no, red oak, 

3,800 ae, 

25. (i0) Milltail Creek SAF 97 Atlantic white-cedar, 36 ace 

26, (11) SAF 98 Pond pine, 25 ac, 

27* (12) North Po& SAF 34 Red spruce - Fraser fir, 200 ac, 

28. (13) Piedmont Beech SAF 52 mite oak - red oak - hickory, 21 ac, 

SAF 8% bblolly pine, 25 ac, 

29, (14) SAF 22 White pine - hemlock, 60 as, 

30, (15) SAF 21 mite pine, 66 ac, 

SAF 50 Black Iscust, $8 ac, 

SAF 5% mite oak - red oak - hickory, 5 ac, 

32, (17) SAF BL bbloP%y pine, 75 ac, 

33, (18) Schenek SAF 82 bblolly pine - hardwood, 25 ac, 

34, (19) Three Forks 

37, (22) Walker Cove 

SAF 24 ISrsmlsek - yellow birch, 2,203 ac, 

SAF 30 Red spruce yellow birch, 2,838 ac, 

SAF 32 Red spruce, 2,632 ac, 

SAF 34 Red spruce - Fraser fir, 4,372 ac, 

SAF 44 Chestnut oak, 826 ac, 

SAF 58 Yellow-poplar - hemleck, 1,379 ac, 

SAF 72 Southern scrub oak, 93 ac, 

paeosin, 43 ace 

SAF 44 Chestnut oak, 4 ac, 

SAF 25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow-~oplzr, 

55 ac, 

SAF 51 White pine - chestnut oak, 103 ae, 
SOUTH CAROLINA 

39. (1) Boiling 

40. (2) Bulls Island 

SAF 82 Loblolly pine - hardwood, 9 ac. 

SAF 74 Sand live oak - cabbage palmetto, 

500 ac, 

SAF 82 hblolly pine - hardwood, 500 ac, 

41, (3) Coon Branch SAF 58 Yellow-poplar - hemlock, 15 ac, 

42. (4) j& Howe Shortleaf 

- Pine 

43, (5) Gulliard Lake 

SAF 76 Shortleaf pine - oak, 120 ac. 

SAF 92 Sweetgum - Huttall oak - willow oak, 

4 ac. 

SAF 102 Baldcypress - water tupelo, 14 ac, 

44. (6) Juniper Bay SAF 97 Atlantic white-cedar, 10 ac. 1 

45. (7) Little Wambaw Swamp SAF 102 Baldcypress - water tupelo, 60 ac, 

46. (8) Scrub Oak 

47, (9) Wassamassaw 

SAF 71 Longleaf pine - scrub oak, 39 ac. 

SAF 72 Southern scrub oak, 8 ac, 

SAF 92 Sweetgum - Huttall oak - willow oak, 

2 ac. 

Marshland, 3 ac. 

SAF 102 Baldcypress - water tupelo, 7 ac, 

Water, 3 ac, 
Roy B, Clarkson i 

Abstract, -- A knowledge of distribution and abandance is essential 

to decisions concerning the rarity sf a taxon, Useful aids in determining distribution are regional manuals, monographs, books, 

scientific papers, regional herbaria, local floras, and loca L herbaria, The final deteminat ion of distribut ion and abundance depends on continuing field work to determine population dynamics, 

: Regional manuals, monographs, regional herbaria, local floras, local herbaria, field work, 

It is obvious that a knowledge of the distribution cf a taxon lies at the 

center sf an understanding concerning its rarity, The expression "rare ti 

endangered9' 'is explicit in its inplicat ions concerning distribution and abundance, The term distribution implies not only the broad range of the taxon but 

also its occurrence with these limits, 

Determining the known geographic range is an important step in achieving 

an understanding of distribution, Several important aids are available for 

this task. 

, -- Many individuals have a tendency to turn to regional 

manuals such as Gray k FManual of Botany, 8th Ed, (FernaEd, 1950), Eew Britton 

and Brown Illustrated Flora (Gleason, L952), or Hanua2 of the Southeastern 

Flora (Sma 11, 1933) and accept the distributions given as descsibi~ the range 

of a taxon, Such manuals are very helpful, however, the weakness noted below 

should be kept in mind, 

The most important consideration in interpreting distributions given in 

regional manuals is the date of publication, A manual may become outdated 

very quickly, especially in areas receiving intensive field work, A second 

inherent weakness in manuals covering a large geographic area is the lack of 

detail given in the distributions, For example, the range of a naturalized 

shrub, Scotch Heather, ( (E,) Bull) is given by Fernald (1950) 

in Gray's Mmual, 8th Ed, as 'Testy or damp sandy spots, ailways of small extent, very Locally from NfLd,, to Mich,, S, to N,S,, N,E,, N,J, and mts, of 

W.Va.". At first reading this would appear to be a rather widespread plant, 

however, when detailed studies of actual populations are made this plants shows 

a remarkably disjunct distribution and is seen ta be rare in every part sf its 

range, 

Despite these weaknesses, regional manuals, even old ones, are valuable 

tools for they call attention to taxa needing additional study and provide a 

starting place for such study, 

1/ Professor of Biology and Curator of the Herbarium, Biology Department, 

West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, 
, Books, : Valuable supplements to distribution info 

tion found iri regional manuals are found in monographs, other books, and research papers. Monographs concerned with plant systematics and/or plant geography usually contain detailed distribution data, These data are often sumam 

rized in distribution maps, Such data are invaluable in updating knom distributions, Aecess,to mny monographs prepared in the United States as doctoral 

dissertations my be had through University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, 

Michigan, Pertinent material from many monographs are published in such jour- - 

rials as Taxon, Brittonia, eerican Midland Naturalists, and Castmea or in book 

form, 

Several excellent books contain distribution information andlor maps, These 

are usually restricted to plants with a limited distribution or to particular 

plant types, Examples of these are: Harlow & Harper, 1968; PoLunin, 2959; 

Gsod, 1964; t4eusel, et al, 1965; Rulten, 1958, 3.968; Little, 1971; Broan & Brown, 

1972; and Critchfield d Little, 1966, The date of publication of such books is 

again an important consideration in interpreting the distribution data, $'Index 

Hshmensis" (Tralaa, H., 1969, 19729, an index to distribution mags with worldwide and bibliographic references is an especially valuable source of infomat ion, 

Herbaria : Large regional herbaria have facilities for study and 

may lend specimens, These provide a basis for updating range information for 

specimens representing important range extensions are often sent by the collectors to these centers. Names and addresses of herbaria are found in Index 

Herbarisrum (Lanjouw & Staf leu, 1965). 

LOCAL DISTRBBUT IQE 

It is on the local level that the rarity of a taxon is determined, The 

number of known populations, and the Iscation, size and dynamics of the population can only be determined locally, 

-- Local Floras: Recent local floras such as - of 

(Strausbaugh & Core, 1970), Manual of tke Vascul ra 

(Radford, Ahles, Bell, 1968) and Flora of (Steyermark, 1963) are 

excellent sources of distribution data, I 

It is difficult to rewin current in assessements sf plant distribution, 

even at the local level. For example, since the revision of Strausbaugh & 

Core's Flora of West Virginia (Vol, 1-4, 1970-1974; Vol. 4 in press) over 20 

taxa new to the State have been discovered, Several of these new records extend the known ranges, West Virginia is a relatively small, well botanized 

area, Larger, less botanized areas my expect a greater number of additions 

to there flora in a relatively short period sf time, 

Local Herbaria : Local herbaria are indispensable in distribution studies, 

b'dany herbaria have distribution maps for taxa collected in the region, These 

are useful for quickly checking the overall distribution, Saany considerations 

are necessary in the interpretau an of such mps, such as: How well has the 

area been botanized? Are collections recently made or are the herbarium 

collections outdated? How widespread are the populations sampled? If collections are sufficient the distribution of the plant may be considered well known, 

particularly if the taxon is easily seen in the field and l.denl;ifigd or if its 

habitat is restricted to well defined limits, 

However, if the taxon is difficult to see in the field, hard to identify 
and/or graus in a variety of habitats the distribution may be much more extensive 

than herbarium vouchers indicate. The distribution of such plants may be considered as undetemined until further field work elucidates the distribution 

and abundance, &ny grasses and sedges are in this category, 

The local kerbarim is also useful in establishing relevant facts concerning habitat, size of populations, date of collection, and abundance. These 

facts are necessary to decisions concerning the rarity of the taxon. 

-- FieEd Gaork: Planuals, monographs and herbaria all have a tendency to become static, unless continued efforts are made to update and revise records, 

A11 too often field work is de-emphasized in an institution after many years 

of activity, This allows the collections to become outdated and of limited 

value as time progresses. Only through vigorous and continuous field work can 

an up-to-date knowledge of the status of populations be determined. A forest 

fire, aa secess road or any of dozens of other things can obliterate or greatly restrict a population. Only through careful assessment of the population 

dynamics of a taxon can its survival probability be determined. 

he sf the greatest problems in detemining distribution involves nomenclature. Synonomy at the generic, specific and sub-specific levels makes cmpasisons sf Lists of endangered and threatened species very difficult, For example 

a genus is listed as Aureolaria in six state lists, Gerardia in six other lists 

and in five additional lists, Qohn hrtez, personal interview), At 

the lower taxonomic levels the problem is even greater. A need for standardization of nomenclature is very pressing, 
Brow, R, 6, and M, L, Brow, 1972. Woody plants of Maryland, 347 p. Univ. 

of mryland, 

Gritchfield, W, B, and E, L, Little, Jr, 1966, Geographic distribution of the 

pines of the World, Misc, Pub. No, 991, USM, For. Sew, 

Pernald, M, L, 1950, Gray's manual of Botany, 8th Ed. 1632 g, N,Y,: Anzerican Book Go, 

Gleason, H, A. 1952, The New Britton & Brom illustrated flora sf the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, Vol, I, 11, 111: 482, 655, 589 pl 

eJ ,Ye : New Vork Botanical Garden, 

Good, R. 1964. The geography of flowering plants, 3rd Ed. N ,Ye : Wiley & 

Sons, 

Harlow, W, I%, and E. S, Marrar, 1968. Textbook of Dendrology, 5th Ed, 512 p, 

N.U.: McGraw-Hill Book Go, 

Hulten, E. 1958. The amphi-Atlantic plants and their phytogeographical 

connections, Kung. Svenska Vetenskapsakad, Wandl, F, Jarde Series 7(l): 

1-340. 279 maps, 

Lanjouw, J, and F, A, Stafleu, 1964, Index Herbariarrrm, Part 1, The 

herbaria of the world. 5th Ed, Regm Vegetabile 31: 1-251. 

Little, E, L., Jr. 1971. Atlas of United States trees. Vol, I: 9 p, 200 

maps. Misc. Pub, No, 3.146, USDA For. Sem, 

Meusel, W,, E. Jager and E, Winert. 1965, Vergleichende chorologie der 

zentraleuropaischen flora, Jena, Gustav Fischer, 

Polunin, N, 1959, Circumpolar Arctic flora, 514 p, Oxford : Oxford 

University Press, 

Radford, A. E,, W, E, Ahles and C, R, Bell, 1968, Manual of the vascular 

flora of the Carolinas. 1183 p. Chapel Hill: Univ, of North Carolina 

Press, 

Small, J, K. 1933, Manual of the Southeastern Flora. Pub, by the Author, 

New Yoifk. Reissued in 1953 by the Univ, of North Carolina Press, Chapel 

Hill, N,C,; faeirnile reprint issued in 2 vols, in 1972 by Mofner Pub, Cs, 

Steyermark, S, A. 1963, Flora of Missouri, 1725 p, Ames: The Iowa State 

University Press, 

Strausbaugh, 8, D, and E, E, Core, 1964-1974, Flora of West Virginia, 

4 Val, Rev, Ed, 1-3. West Virginia Univ, Bull, Ser, 78: 7-2, 1825 p, 

Morgantown, 

Tralau, M, (ed , ) , 1969, 1972. Index Holmensis, a world ghykogeographic 

index, VoL, 1 -- Equisetales - Gymnospemae; VoL, II -- Honocotyledonae 

A-1, Scientific Publishers, Ltd, Zurich, 
STUDIES ON THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FOREST RELATED 

SPECIES OF THE SOUTHEASTERN AREA--A PROGRESS REPORT 

1 P Robert Kral - 

Abstract.--The principal investigator in a cooperative agreement between the Forest Service and Vanderbilt University has 

initiated a study of threatened and endangered vascular plant 

species within the 13-state Southeastern Area, their habitat 

requirements and the effects of forest management practices on 

their survival and recovery. Mr. Nathan A. Byrd, Multiple Use 

Specialist for the Service and co-investigator, has coordinated 

the project which was initiated in June of 1975 and which continues 

in force through December 1976. Current data on threatened and 

edangered U. S. species are consulted from which are extracted 

only those with forest affinities and endemic to the southeastern 

U, S. A. Each species of these last is being checked as to its 

geographic range, its habitat, and its distinguishing characteristics. A list of pertinent literature is in preparation. 

Descriptions of the species are being done, these accompanied by 

how current management practice might influence, adversely or 

positively, each species. 

The basis for a list of forest related species has been the "Report on 

Endangered and Threatened Plant Species of the Vni ted States," (15 December 

1964) which was presented to the Congress by the Smithsonian Institution. 

Supplements to this list, those containing additions and deletions, are also 

consulted. From this list only forest related southeastern species have 

been selected, but the extracted list still involves over 200 species in 

that most of the southeast is or was forested. Inclusion on the project 

list of some species of open areas (i.e., cedar glades, granite outcrops, 

shale barrens, heavy earth formations such as the Black Be1 t) may be open 

to question; however, in such areas many of the species are sera1 to forest 

and in that sense are forest related. An attempt is being made to visit 

localities for as many of the species as possible within the limitations of 

project time. This, where possible, allows for the collection of voucher 

specimens of the species concerned and for the getting up of field notes on 

habitats and associated species. Where such is not possible, a consultation 

of specimens already collected together with an appraisal of available published information becomes necessary. During 1975 and early 1976 the bulk 

of field work has been in the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and 

Tennessee. During the summer and fall of 1976 some field work in other 

parts of the southeastern forest area will be done. Visits to larger 

herbaria for locality information have been made or are planned. The 

Smithsonian collections have already been consulted; the very large collections of southeastern plants at the Herbarium, University of North Carolina 

at Chapel Hill, are also to be studied. A list of pertinent literature for 

each species is being gotten up largely by Mr. Ronald L. Jones, Assistant on 

the project and graduate student in Botany at Vanderbilt University. 

I/ Professor of Botany, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. - 
Results and Observations t 

i 

Circa 100 species are now written up in rough form, Most of the 

remaining should be both visited in the field and/or written up by the 

fall of 1976. It is becoming increasingly evident that a listing of 

occurrene of many of the species is largely of historical value only. 

In the past decade increasingly large amounts of the habitat formerly 

occupied by endangered specfes have been badly bitten into by %and 

developers, dam builders, pine monoculturists, row crop or stock farmers, 

etc, Thus, for example, many of the localities I personally have known 

and many gotten from older collections or collectors are no more. 

A study of the species on my list shows most to belong to one or 

another df the fol lowing broad categories: 

1. Plants of high hydroperiod soils, primarily in the bogs, swamps, 

flatwoods, and low savanna of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. Many 

of the Orchidaceae, all the Sarraceniaceae, Droseraceae, many Cyperaceae, 

Juncaceae, Xyridaceae on my list belong here. Whether these are drained 

for agriculture or for pine plantations the result is the same, the plants 

are destroyed. A great many are also heliophytic and, therefore, even if 

the land is not drained, but planted or seeded to pine, the crown closure 

so desirable from the standpoint of pine production shades such plants out. 

The greatest number of endangered southeastern plant species probably fits 

- in this category. Unfortunately, the same region is also one of the greatest 

potential for fast production of volumes of pine. I have no doubt that the 

greatest challenge to finding a compromise between good forest management and 

threatened species maintenance lies here. 

2. Plants of outcrop areas. Most of the endemic succulents, Saxifrages, 

many composites belong here. Several are seasonal on or in the temporary 

pools or shallow soi 1 pockets that form on or near the outcrops (Amphianthus, 

Isoetes, etc.). A few (i.e., Sedum nevii, Neviusia alabamensis) may occur on 

outcrops in shade, but most are again-heliophytes, forest related only in a 

succesiional sense. Most are highly substrate specific, appearing on only 

certain chalks, limestones, shales, granitic rocks, etc., or on the thin soils 

overlying or adjacent to such. The greatest threat to many of these is through 

rock quarrying, through land development for human habitation or recreational 

use (witness the destruction of large parts of Stone Mountain! !) or through 

their development for low grade pasture (a major hazard). 

3. Plants of high Appalachian forest and balds. Many of the most 

aesthetically pleasing species are here, in what might constitute the most 

ecoIogi~ally sensitive situations of all, Several carices, 

, Sol i dago 9 re , 

some confined to but a few summits in the unsuntains. Fortunately, many are 

on government land, either part of National Forest or in National or State 

Parks. impact is greatest through exploitations for recreational use or 

through agriculture in the uplands, primarily grazing. Pressure is increasing 

from campers, backpackers, and vacationers. 
4. Plants of sandhills formations or droughty sandy lands. 

Among such would be those species confined to the deep sands of the longleaf 

pine-turkey oak type, the sand pine-evergreen scrub type (as was once so well 

displayed in the Central Highlands province of Florida). The former is widespread through much of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain, the latter mare 

local in the Coastal Plain, principally in Florida, but with extensions (and 

slight facies shifts) northward into Georgia and westward into Alabama. 

Large1 y poor agricultural !y save for local conversion to fruit production 

(large scale in ~lorida!!) these have been a silvicultural challenge to the 

foresters and have been targets for an increased production of pine, this 

usually involving removal of competitive scrub species, particularly oak, 

and thus impacting endangered species. In that the pines are usually row 

planted, habitat alteration in site preparation or later when pine crowns 

close is such as to eliminate many of the herbs and shrubs. Fire, used as a 

management tool in maintenance of longleaf pine reproduction, and always a 

natural factor in the longleaf pine formations is a considerable factor here. 

Protection from fire permits further conversion of habitat away from suitable 

situations for many of these endangered species which are part of disclimax. 

5. Plants of special soils related to a particular rock substrate. 

The Black Belt, for example, occupies parts of a large number of counties in 

Alabama and Mississippi. Much of this was prairie or savanna at the time of 

white settlement, but their heavy earths have been so converted to pasture 

and to row crop agriculture that we have little real information today as to 

what species they contained originally. Succession to forest appears similar 

to that occurring on the different calcareous rocks of middle Tennessee and 

northern Alabama, but forest use does not constitute the real threat to what 

original country remains. 

6. Plants of the rich, mixed mesophytic formations, these best displayed 

in the Appalachian provinces and interior provinces westward. Many of these 

appear to occupy very narrow niches, are plants of climax forest soils, and 

are often among the first to fall victim to poor logging practice, either 

through resultant insolation, serious soil disturbance involving erosion, or 

through conversion of the forest either to croplands or pasture. Within the 

past decade, particularly strip mining has become a major problem. Ironically, 

the sort of forest practice recommended by the professional forester for most 

hardwoods (namely careful select ion or group select ion) would impact these 

species least; however, any plantwise traveler through this beleaguered part 

of the forest needs no detailed ecological study to conclude that, on much 

private and state land, such recommendations are seldom applied. 

The abovementioned six cateogries represent the habitats occupied by most 

of the species on my list. The greatest impact, in the case of most, is 

through any approach toward monoculture, particularly of southern yellow pine. 

If the heavy equipment employed in site preparation does not destroy the plants 

outright, the successful establishment of a canopy of pines provides the 

finishing touch. If site preparation also involves drainage, it takes no great 

power of observation to conclude that a plant of high hydroperiod soil will die 

out. It is also obvious that pasturing of forest land be it high or low has 

the same ultimate effect. If some of our endangered species are weeds, they 

are! very special weeds that tend not to move around much. A stand of them may 

be gone the year after pasturing. 

/ --- 
Final Observations 

As I see it, the difficulties in saving endangered plant species are 

as foll~ws: 

1. We appear sti4l to be far behind in our inventory. Much of the 

information that is being fed into computers is based on older records. 

1 do not believe that many of these records are checked out today, or are 

inadequately checked out; thus, more effort in the field is needed on the 

part of many more trained personnel than are presently supported for such 

work. Talk to anyone today who is trying to do a state flora in the United 

States, In endangered species work much too much support appears to be given 

to administration. The way habitat is being wiped out, last year's record 

may be no good today. Continuing field inventory, as any who have done it 

know, is time consuming, expensive, but necessary. 

2. We have a problem with education, even among our resource technicians. 

Most resource managers are understandably preoccupied with how to use the 

land in their charge or ownership profitably. Their jobs, their income 

depend on this. How is it possible to convince them that "x" number of 

species of grasses and sedges, or some of our less colorful composites, all 

of which comprise a challenge even to specialists, can be protected and at 

the same time allow for profitable land use? How is it possible to train a 

woods crew to identify plants, to do this at minimum loss ts the efficiency 

of an operation? These questions have occurred to you all; we have little 

time to find answers. 

In regard to my own work, certainly endangered species it seems to me 

ought to fit into the management plans for forested lands. Their disappearance 

from much of their former area ought to be one of the more alarming symptoms of 

land trouble in the country today, a warning that a large part of a system of 

forests that (without human manipulation) have provided vast revenues is being 

altered perhaps irreversibly and certainly to the loss of all. 

In order to identify the problem, it helps to be able to identify the 

plants, The showiest species may, in the long run, show us the way. Everyone 

can identify a pitcher plant, a fly-trap, a ladyslipper. Of course, such 

plants are for the same reason victims of commercial exploitation. However, it 

may well work out that, under a blanket of sensible protection offered to the 

more conspicuous endangered elements, associated endangered species of grasses, 

sedges, etc., that are difficult for most of us to identify may themselves be 

protected. Thus, for example, when instructions are given to ease up on a 

particular pitcherplant habitat, several rare sedges and grasses will also 

benefit. So we are then face to face with what we all know must be done, 

namely to preserve some blocks of habitat intact, even if these be "nested" 

within largely manipulated areas, 

What appears to be ahead for a lot of us who are concerned with preservation of endangered plant species is: 

a. Further and timely census of existing localities, clarification of 

identifying characteristics both of the species and their habitats. 

Making this information available quickly to those who work with the 

land or shape land use policy. 
b, improved communication with land managers, coordination such as 

will lead to realistic incorporation of endangered species into 

management plans, This (again) has to involve acccrate identification of both the species and their special habitat, 

c, To explore further the possibility that a more sophisticated management can evolve, tempered as it v4i 11 be wl th a better understanding 

sf ail parts of terrestrial systems, The fortunes made from the 

land as we found it are testimony to the fact that it, meaping P all 

of its quirky species, had a place in making that ~rcfit, It should 

Pollow that this profitability arose through intact, healthy ecological 

gtt= dB-&< +%mi, + 9 baz~ ~f-2~ s-+~ 1 SeSt pa-75 c;f l.'iJh ici kQ* i": 3 f: Czcce 

eec~-~cyv~ ca I 1s * " aesehet i cs : 9 y, 
Reference Cited 

The Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. 1974. Report on endangered 

and threatened plant species of the United States. 200 pp. plus 

supplements* 
ENDANGERED SPECIES - QUESTIONS OF SCIENCE, ETHICS AND LAM 

3, Frank McCormickl 

Abstract 

Protection of endangered plant speci es is comonl y 

sought through scientific research which may provide a better 

understanding of the environmental changes which threaten plant 

species. Other efforts focus upon the development of an enviranmental ethic to protect endangered species out of respect 

for life in all its varied farms, A final recourse is do 

secure protection of endangered species under law. The argument presented is that ecological research and evolution of an 

environmental ethic must be pursued, but neither will protect 

endangered plant species from extinction. Law and law eniorcement are presently inadequate but offer the best promise of 

effective species preservation. 

1 Dl rector , Graduate Program in Ecology and Professor of Botany. 

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 
Species exist as populationss Eash species shares a comsn environment 

with others and may modify that environmentthrough the influence of biotic 

structure or products of physiological processes. Species populations interact with one another in the capture, conversion or movement of energy, nutrients and water within complex natural ecosystems. Accordingly, if research on species biology is to be applicable to problems of endangered species, it is imperative that we include analysis of the ecological niche of 

each species within the context of the total ecosystem. 

Endangered specks rnay acquire such status by remaining relatively immutable in a rapidly changing envirsnwnt, The constant state of flux sf the 

inorganic world 4~s always been a driving force For srganic evolution, However, the rate and magnitude OF environmental change resulting from recent 

activities of a single species exceeds the adaptive capacities 

of most species, most wstably self, Each species identified 

as endangered is a symbolic alarm to the ecosystem of which it is a vital 

component, The cause far alarm is obvious, Actions and forces which alter 

the environment to a degree that the most sensitive biological components are 

endangered, in time, must also threaten additional species, interspecific 

relathnships and eventually the entire ecosystgm, Too sften in an effort ts 

justify proposed projects and a1 so avoid species extinction, endangered 

species are protected by isolation or transplantation, much as a surgeon 

would treat for a localized cancer; when in fact the source of endangerment 

threatens the entire system as does the spread of cancer through the lymphatic 

system. Effective treatment eliminates the source of infection, purges the 

environment of contamination and stimulates repair of afflicted components. 

Unless we resist taking the path of least resistance, and unless we argue 

protection of the entire habitat, our legacy to future generations will be 

endangered animals in Zoos and endangered plants in gardens with no natural 

habitat to which they might return. ii ke simple surgery, transplantation is 

an effective deterent to extinction, but only as a last resort. 

Extinction like birth and death of individuals is a natural phensmenen, 

but it is more significant in that beyond a shift in the equilibrium of mortality and natality there is an irretrivable loss 06 life form, The m~st 

significant questions concerning species extinction, like those often associated with death or pregnancy, relate to the cause of the condition as much 

as to the condition itself. The prescription offered is for biologists to 

look beyond the symptoms sf species health and safety, to become consciously 

aware of the causes of species being endangered and to become professionally 

active in an atxack QgQn these causes, The fight takes place in the arenas 

of science, ethics and law; each of kiibrich are at present rrrutually irrelei/anta 

In an egocentric society guided by anthropomrphic ethics, it is surprising that only yesterday we came to realize that human health is dependent 

upon environmental health, How long will it be before we consciously acknowledge the unconscious reality that not only not only certain 

animals, but all species, including plants, are endangered by the consequences 

of similar stresses, phil~ssphies, policies and actions? 
QUESTIONS OF SCIENCE 

Endangered species include those unable to acclimate, adjust or adapt at 

a rate compatible with environmental change. Species-envi ronmentd relat ionships are by definition and practice the subject of ecology. Certain deficiencies in this young science are in part responsible for the plight of 

endangered plant species. Illumination of these problems may identify paths 

do progress, 

Ecologists appear to be poor teachers. The lessons of ecology are either 

poorly taught or there is an organized resistance to their acceptance. We 

appear to have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining the interdepen- dencies of plants, animals and man in the world wide operation of the first 

and second laws of thermodynamics. Biologists must recognize endangered 

plant species as sensitive components of an endangered system. Research 

efforts which focus on individual plant species apart from their role in the 

ecosystem will be only partially rewarding. 

A very serious problem is that most biologists do not recognize the 

existence of plant species as populations. Ecology texts and courses describe plants as components of "communities", units of landscape structure. 

Animals on the other hand, are acknowledged to exist as "populations" 

regulated by complex interactions of density dependent and density independent factors. Plant populations are seldom subjected to the rigorous 

demographic, experimental and mathmatical analysis which characterize studies 

of animal population dynamics. Noteworthy exceptions include P.B. Cavers (19671, 

J.L. Harper (1960), J.M. Hett (1968), J. Pelton (19531, and R.R. Sharitz (1973). 

The paucity of research on the population dynamics of plants leaves us unnecessarily ignorant of the interactions between plant species and the stresses 

which threaten their survival. We are particularly lacking in quantitative information essential for prediction, which is an important measure of the 

power of any science. 

The ecological concept of microenvironment recognizes the ultimate subdivision of environment to which species are responsive (Platt, 1958). A 

corollary to this concept is that there are specific stages in the life cycle 

and specific physiological processes which are orders of magnitude more 

sensitive than others to environmental stresses. It is imperative that we go 

beyond analysis of species distribution and abundance and identify the life 

cycle stages and l ife processes most endangered by a changing environment. The 

dimensions of environment are space and time. Our research design must account 

for variations in the sensitivities of endangered plant species from time to 

time and place to place. 

The dominance of reduction analysis in scientific methodology is yet 

another unfortunate characteristic of research in species biology. Reduction 

analysis can reveal specific determinants of population growth, survival and 

diversity. Hal istic analysis coupled with the reduction approach can not only 

identify cause and effect rel ationships between endangered plant populations 

and envi ronmental stress, but a1 so the threats of environmental stress to 

species extinction and to the entire ecosystem. Plant populations, common, 

rare or endangered are so much a part of the complex fabric of natural 
made in the following areas if we are to obtain effective legislation: 1) a 

re-definition of plants as being under the stewardship of landowners rather 

than as being possessed as property; 2) attainment of legal "standing" for 

plants as currently enjoyed by other forms of life and even by some inanimate 

objects; and 3) more real istic environmental law curricula. 

Concepts of ownership and possession change rapidly as evidenced by the 

emancipation of felons, slaves, and women within a few decades. Emancipation 

of plants as property may be the final blow ushering the demise of the untenable, 

Baconian philosophy that man has dominion over nature. Garrett Hardin in the 

preface to Chri stopher Stone's classic "Should Trees Have Standing" (1 974) 

argues that property is.mistakenly treated as a noun instead of a verb, and is 

according1 y erroneous1 y accepted as a possession. In fact, property exists 

only in the sense that there are property rights which recognize certain actions may be taken to protect objects against acquisition or mistreatment. 

In the verbal sense, property is the existence of defenses against uses of 

objects in contradiction to those uses intended by the steward of record. If 

the concept of property is modified to include defense against extinction, or 

if plant species gain the legal standing of other life forms, endangered plant species may enjoy protection under law. Both seem possible in view of the rapidity of changes in concepts of ownership and the narrow (4-3) defeat of 

Supreme Court Justice Douglas's dissent in the 1972 case of Mineral King vs. 

Sierra Club. The dissent argued for the legal standing of plants, and it 

almost passed. A final problem is the inflexible curricula available to those 

pursuing training in environmental law. Few environmental law curricula include relevant biology, ecology or environmental science courses. Consequently, 

those in a most advantageous position to speak for endangered plant species are 

%nadequa%eIy prepared to do so. 

In sumary, many plant species are endangered because of scientific negligence. The most rigorous scientific techniques avai lable are seldom appl ied 

to the analyses of plant populations, the reductionist philosophy emphasises 

differences rather than similarities of all life-forms, and dhe holistic philosophy of ecology has not been effectively applied to studies of endangered 

plant species. An environmental ethic has not yet evolved which protects plant 

species in their struggle for existence and the trophy mental ity of the Conservation Esthetic has not yet been rejected. 

In the akence of eGhica1 behavior, law and law enforcement appear to 

offer the most expedient protection to endangered plant species. The path 

to progress forks into two trails, both of which must be explored; both of 

which lead us away from extinction of endangered species. The longer, more 

difficult, more ideal istic trail leads to the development of an environmental 

ethic compatible with that prescribed by Leopold (1949), Muir (1918), and 

Santmire (1970). The shorter, less difficult and more real istic path leads 

to improved ecological research in plant population dynamics; attainment of 

legal "standing" for plant species, rejection of the concept of plants as 

property, and improvements in environmental law curricula. In the absence of 

ethical restraints, legal restraints upon freedom of action should be considered 

a last resort. The most serious and tragic consequence of our inability to 

guide our lives and our nation by an environnlental ethic is, by the course of 

law, a continued loss of corporate and personal freedom. 
LITERATURE CITED 

Baldwin, E, B, 1949, - to 

G,B, Cambridge Univers~ty Press, 

Cavers, P. Be and J. L. Harper. 1967. Studies in the dynamics of plant 

populations, J, Ecsl, 55: 59-71, 

Harper, J. L. 1960. Factors Controlling Plant Numbers. In J. L. Harper (~d.) 

- of p, 179-132, Blackwell, Oxford, 

Hett, J. M. and 0. L. Loucks. 1968. Application of Life Table Analyses to 

Tree Seedlings in Quetics Provincial Park, Qndaris, Forest. Chran. 44: 29- 

32 

Leopald, A, 1949, - A Sierra Club/Balfentine A, New York. 

Muir, J. 1918. My First Summer in the Sierra. In Sierra (Ed.) v The 

- of Boston. Houghton Mifflin ~ompG. 

Pelton, J. 1953. Ecological Life Cycle of Seed Plants. Ecol. 34: 619-628. 

Platt, R. B. 1958. The Ultimate Subdivisions of the Environment and Species 

Adjustment, Bull * Ga, Acad. Sci. 96: 84-91. 

Santmire, H, P, 1930, Brother Earth, New Vork, Thomas Nelson Inc. 

Sharitz, Re R. and J. F. McCormick. 1973. Population Dynamics of Two Competing 

Annual Plant Species. Ecol . 54: 723-740. 

Stone, C, D, 1974, Los Altos, California. 

William Kaufmann, Inc, 

Whitehead, A, N, 7925, Science and the Modern World, New York. MacMillan 

Publishing @o,, Ins, 
SPECIES BIOLOC=U: DEFINITION, DIRECTION, DATA Am DECISIONS 

3, R. Massey and Paul D. hits so&^ 

Abstract,--Decisions concerning preservation sf rare, endangered and threatened species should be based on biologica&ly sound 

informtion, The urgency of the situation dictates that a csntprehensive system of Inforaation collection, storage and retrieval be 

developed Aick will promote the collection of comparable information facilitating decisions on species preservation, A model for 

such a system for Species Biology Studies is discussed which consists of four basic fields of evidence--reproductisn, dispersion, 

establishment and maintenance, Basic high priority questions in 

each field of evidence are posed and classification for character 

classes, and characters with selected character states for studies 

of reproductive biology of endangered species is presented, 

"Species biology" is a holistic approach to the understanding of individuals, populations and population systems through the use of evtdence from many 

different fields or disciplines, It involves an understanding of organisms 

with respect to their structure, function and position with 8 time reference, 

Suck studies of the biology of a species or other taxonomic rank involve the 

work of generalists as well as specialists, This work represents, in part, 

a reversion to the much needed types of studies made by naturalists of the 

last cenrury but with a fundamental difference--the application of the best 

csncepes, teebniques and equipment of todafs specialists, Another difference 

is that we must in the case of rare, endangered or threatened species focus on 

the cornon goal of species preservation--rather than just intellectual curiosity, 

* Our 

first priority should be to understand a species to the point that we can make 

biological and economic decisions concerning this species at a particular site, 

in a specific comnity-habitat type, at a given locality, Studies of specific taxa must be conducted as soon as possible which focus on questions which 

will allow us to make sound decisions at the earliest possible date. Assuming 

that we have mstly identified the first order of taxa to be preserved, the 

question which must be answered is: What informtian mst be callected w&ich 

will give us this necessary level of understanding to preserve or conserve 

species both now and for the future? 

A general model seem necessary for us to relate and develop Informtional system and estaBlish priorities as well as to pose basic high priority 

questions, 

L/ Curator of the Herbarium, Department of Botany, University of North Carolina, 

Chapel Hill and ExecutLve Secretary, Federal Canttee on Ecological Reserves, 

National Science Foundation, Washington, B, C, 
In the organizational model (Figure 1) we have tried to compartmentalize 

the essential aspects of a specles, which should also be applicable to communities or ecosystems, into four major fields of evidence - reproduction, dispersion, establishmect and maintenance, Within these four fields of evidence we 

Figure 8, --- 9 

propose two subsystrems of infomation based on priority. To establish priorities we have asked a series of basic questions which seem to require answers 

early in our species studies which will give us data to make preliminary decisions or assist in guiding further study, Examples of decisions which might be 

made at this point for a species X are: 

9, Species X is indeed endangered, based on field experience, and must 

be preserved. 

2, Species X preservation must include a certain minimal area, 

3, Species X preservation depends on the presence sf a Species Y. 

4 Species X will require habitat management. 

5, Species X would best be preserved by the protection of a specific 

site, 

6. Species X is a component of a stable community and little or no 

management will be required. 

7. Species X requires additional study in specific areas before any 

far-reaching decisions are made, 
hie propose a prelimidary list of questions that species biologists address 

in each sf the four fields of evidence in Priority Class I, These questions 

should he answered for each site selected for study and sumarized for each 

species prier to decision-making, 

DISPERSION 

is the gapuiatisn Are viable pro- Are new indivld- Is there a range 

reproducing? pagules presefit uals present? of age & maturaat a site? tion classes? 

54-iat types of What types of %&at is the %hat are the age 

reproduct ion propagules are origin sf the and raturatisn 

&re occurring? present? new individuals? classes present? 

7" nnat types of b%at is dis- Idhat type of estab- What is the 2 of 

breeding systems persed? lishment processes the papulation in 

are operative? are operative? each class? 

What types of mat are the mere is establish- %%at are the spatial 

polli~atisn sys- dispersal agents? ment occurring? relations of the 

tern are found? different agematuration classes? 

What is the repro- %%at is the dis- mat is the % of What is the surductive potential persal effi- new ind Jviduals vivability of the 

sf the population? cieney? based on their individuaLs proorigin2 gressing into the 

next age class? 

REPRODUCTZTE BIOLOGY SYSTEM 

The next step seem to be the development of a c$assifJeatisn of character 

classes, characters and character states for each of the fields of evldence which 

will allow us to systemtically eolleet, store, and retrieve information to answer 

these questions and formulate others, We have developed such a ~Lassifieation for 

the field sf reproductive biology (including pollination) and are in dhe process 

of developing similar classifications for other fields, 

The subsystems and character classes for reproduction are given in Table 1, 

Specific characters and selected character states for the high priority subsystem are given in Table 2, 

The organizational model and classification systems proposed are based on 

several general assumptions (Table 3) and on the speef fic assu~ption that the 

questions posed are hlgh priority ones and are significant in preservation of 

rare, endangered and threatened species, 

The following exmpLes show the relevance of selected characters from reproductive evidence to decisions on species preservation in general and selection 

st specific populati-~s or sites, 
1, The maintenance of maximum variability with greatest potential for flexibility can best be accomplished by giving protection priority to sexually reproducing populations, 

2, The type of breeding system is often a critical factor in determining 

the size of an area to be protected. To preserve the greatest genetic variability outcrossing species with specific pollen vectors generally will require 

larger areas than autogamous species or outcrossers with promiscuous pollinat ion, 

3. An analysis of pollination systems may indicate that species other than 

the one being studied also serve as major food sources, nesting sites, etc., for 

the pollinator of a rare, endangered or threatened species. Preservation of one 

species is therefore contingent upon preservation of another species. 

4. In a series of populations those with high reproductive potential and 

realization are better candidates for preservation than ones with low potential 

or realization. 

5. In cases where reproductive realization is low, Species Biology Studies 

may identify causes of this reduction in reproduction which may be corrected to 

some degree by management practices. 

The priority systems should not, however, be naisconstrued to mean that only 

subsystem 1 is important and that the next subsystem can be ignored, or that 

other questions should not be asked. The answers to questions associated with 

the first priority group may simply indicate that information from the next 

priority group or other information is required before any preliminary decisions 

can be made. The model and character classification scheme are proposed to offer 

direction and organization for our attack on the problem of understanding and 

preserving rare, endangered and threatened species. 

Table 1.--Classification of pollination-reproductive characters for species 

biology--subsystems and character classes. 

SUBSYSTEM 1: High Priority Information 

I. Reproductive System 11. Breeding System 

111. Pollination System IV. Reproductive Potential 

SUBSYSTEM 2: Second Order Priority 

I. Phenology (Plant-vector) 11, Morphology (Plant-Vector) 

111. Isolating Mechanisms & IV. Analysis of Variation & 

Reproductive Barriers Reproductive Strategies 

Table 3. --General assumptions. 

Designation of status and legislation will not in themselves preserve 

rare, endangered and threatened species. 

Species preservation can best be accomplished through habitat preservation which will involve selection of sites to be protected and/or 

managed. 

A tentative list of rare, endangered and threatened species is available. 

The major goal of Species Biology Studies is to preserve rare, endangered 

and threatened species through habitat preservation and management. 

Distributional records and pertinent literature have been checked or 

reviewed prior to beginning field studies. 

Field sites for study have been selected and described with precision. 

Field-laboratory researchers are aware that manipulation at a site or 

removal of study subjects from a site must be miniml. 

Field and laboratory studies and monitoring of protected sites will 

continue after the preliminary studies and tentative decisions 

have been made. 

High Priority Type Studies may not be sufficient in all cases and more 

comprehensive studies may be required. 

The help of specialists in many fields is solicited and encouraged by 

those conducting Species Biology Studies. 

Information relative to management practices is to be assembled and 

made available to all concerned. 

Dialogue between interested groups and individuals should be promoted 

through symposia and conferences on a regular basis and some central 

agency should make published and unpublished data available to all 

workers. 
LITERATUm CITED 

Faegri, K., and L. van der Pijl. 1971. The principles of pollination ecology. 

2nd Revised Edition. New York: Pergamon Press. 

Radford, A. E. -- et al. 1974. Vascular plant systematics. New York: Harper & 

Row Publishers, Inc. 
AREA CLASSIFICATIOM SYSTE??: 

A STANDWLZATION SCHEm 

Albert E. ~adfordL/ 

Abstract,--Any natural area classification system should include 

biotic asseniblages (vegetation with accompanying fauna), climatic regime(~), soil system(s), geologic formation(~), and land form(~) by 

physiographic province hierarchTcally arranged with each entry at each 

level circumscribed and encoded, The p~~posed represents an eEfort to produce a basic standardization scheme for more efficient and 

effective inventory and storage and retrieval of information on natural 

areas, veg~zatlon, floras and rare, endangered and three:: red species, 

The natural themes for any province: A, Vegetation (with animal dependents), 

B, Climate, 6, Soils, D, Geology, E, Topography are interacting but independent 

systems that compose the Ecosystem, The basic energy driving the system is sunlight; 

the basic raw mterials are from the intrusive and extrusive magmas, oceans, and 

atmosphere, Vegetational (with animal dependents) composition, distribution, development is dependent upon climate, soils, geology, topography acting through time, 

Climate (microclimates) is dependent upon vegetation, soils, geology, topography, 

Soil coraposition, distribution and development is dependent upon vegetation, climate 

geology, topography acting through time, Geological structures, formtions, sedimentary rocks are dependent upon climate, vegetation, soils topography and time, Topographic land forms and features, structures and development are dependent upon clirdte, 

vegetation, geology, soils and time, All of these interacting, interdependent independent themes and systems form the basis for the natural area classification schemes 

used in this report, 

The ecological natural history themes for any province study or any conservation effort should provide the framework for a comprehensive survey of biotic and 

abiotlc features. All types of comunities from the pioneer to the climax developed 

during time over the different rock types under each significant climatic regime on 

the major topographic features should be included in the representative site samples 

of a comgfeee survey of the area, The successional comunities, the topo-edaphic 

ciimxes, the continua should be part of the master theme study or conservation effort, Biogenesis has to be integrated with pedogenesis in explaining the present and 

past development of species and communities; climatogenesis and phylogenesis have to 

be coupled with succession and soil formation to explain the present composition and 

distribution of biotic assemblages, In order to understand the origin, migration, 

evolution of species, floras and faunas as well as the productivity and composition 

of present comunities, man will have to try to conserve the 

SYSTEM 

This Hatural Area Classification System, based primarily on Vascular Plants, has 

been designed for inventory and analysis of Natural Areas, Vegetation, Floras and Rare 

- 1/ Director of thz Serbariux, Departnent cf 3otany, University of krth Carolina, 

Chzael Hill, 

95 
and Endangered Species in the eastern United States* This system has been devised 

to cover (I) all types of successional comunities; (2) all types of topo-edaphic 

climxes; (3) all vanishing, rare, endangered or relict species, communities and 

ecosystem; and (4) all disjunct species and comunities, The applicarion sf a 

broad natural area classification for any province is necessary for perspective in 

them analysis and categorization, 

This classification system is based primrily on plant habit (physiognomy) 

arranged in a time or a successional theme from pioneer annuals to climax angiosperm forests (I-XIV) with upland (I-VII) and lowland (VIII-XTV) toposequenees related to moisture (See Table I), The based on vegetation physio-smy within 

a climtic regime and soif order on a major rock formtian and 1a~dfop.m in a wjsr 

physiographic province is the first order of the classification, Tke ftrst 33%- 

order, is based on classes sf rocks (A-F) or parerit mterlals or watertype, The basic rocks (I) are igneous or metamorphosed igneous; the eaPcareous 

(2) are essentially sedinentary carbonate rocks; the carbonaceous 13) are znase 2zrent mterials high in organic content; the ferruginous (4) are precipitates, sedfmeats or metasediments unusually red and high In iron; the saline rocks (5) are salt 

or salty; and the siliceous (6) are igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks high in 

quartz or silicic acid, The rocks are grouped together that produce similar edaphic 

conditions in a given region, 

The second order, Community Glasses, are biotic assemblages characteristee of 

different edaphic conditions wlthin a climatie regime, These classes are relatively 

broad groups (orders) or assemblages that have been described in the literature oxrer 

a long period of time, As more inventory experience Is gained, the list of classes 

will be extended, Here the comunity classes are indicated as monomials, biasmials, 

trinodals, etc, according to the nuder of strata In the cornunity described. A 

woody comunity class with three layers would have each layer described according to 

ics physiognomic composition; e, g, The second suborder, 

is a combinati 

each lower layer 

herb or dominant plus habitat; e,g, 

The basic (Third order) should be based on quantitative data for a biotic assemblage with a unlfom microelirnate and edaphfc situaeion (pB, moisture 

and texture classes should be uniform th one-layered cornunity 

type would be denoted by a monomial; e,g, (Reed grass comunity) , 

Stratified (two-layered) cornunities are indicated by a binomial with the first name 

based on dominant canopy species and the second on the dominant "s~bcanspyB' specges; 

e, £5@ 9 

Cornunity type Chestnut oakCanopy dominant inant 

(Shrub layer with more cover than herb layer, 

Community class 

Cornunity type 

(Herb layer with more cover than shrub, shrub 

Cornunity class 
Community type 

Cornunity class 

Those cornunities with three distinctive strata would have a trinomial as the cornmunity type name; e,g., 

Comnity type Chestnut oak--Mountain laurel--Galax 

Canopy dominant Shrub dominant 

tle (5) 

Cornunity class -Heath=- 

Conmunity type 

Cornunity class 

If the community has four distinctive strata then the community type name would be 

indicated by the dodnant from each of the four layers, If vines occur in two or 

more Payers and have a total cover value of (51, then vine dsminantjs) should be part 

of the community type name following (I) at the end of the binomial; e, g,, Chestnut- 

/Catbrier, epiphytes wit er value should be indiceted 

nant epiphyte name; e,g,, -Due~cweed-- -- 

P 

BOSS, 

(Within a 'quuniform" totopo-edaphfc and raicrocbimatic situation the habitat is not en1- 

form, The Buckeye-basswood--GLade fern community used as an example above nas 3 few*: 

stumps and fallen logs with a distinctive flora (h~~ophytes), a few seeptiges with 

some species restricted to them (erenophytes) and walking fern-cevered boulders (pztrodophytes). In an invent~ry of this (or any) cornunity the spkcies should be listed 

by sub-habitat; e,g. humopbyte, crenopl-iyte, petr~dophyte~ epiphyte or calciphytes on 

a calcareous lens or shell. sand in a si%leeoras based csmunity, dry mesopt~:at.es o-~er 

shallow soil in an othemise mesic habitat, pyrophytes around an old canpsite fire, 

aletoghytes on trails through the cornunity etc, within the general cornunity or 

habitat sumary for that particular area sr site,) 

The (third suborder) would have only the stand dominant indicated, 

a monomial for two or more layered cseaanunities- Eastern Hemlock SAF-23 (See Table 21, 

A basic assmption in this classification system is that the animals and lower plant 

components of these biotic cornunities will be represented in the vascular planc cornmunrities in the diverse habitats, 

The first order of the climatic file should include the climatic regines according 

to Koppen or some ather climtologist, The second order might 5ertzin to temperature, 

such as the classification of 6, Hart Merriam; and the ehird order should include the 

edaphic moisture classes as that of the U,S, Departaent of Agriculture, The soil file 

should be based an the soil classification system of the U,S, Departmenr e? Ayricult~re 

with soil order as first order, soil suborder as second order acd ~ossibly the soil 
type as the third order, The rock file should include the geologic formations 

as first order; e,g, The Dakota Sandstone, The Morrison Fornation; the rock/ 

water classes (Radford and Martin, 1975) as the second order, e,g, basic rock, 

brackish water; and individual rock types i,e,, diabase, hematite and blackish, 

brown, clear water as the third order. 

Under the land forms the first order would include broad features such as 

basins, beaches, bluffs, hills, plains, lakes with specific types of each as the 

second order e,g, deltaic-plain, pluvial pool, fault valley; the third order would 

include the broad habitats such as bottomland field, lake swamp, upland slope etc, 

(See Radford and Martin, 19751, The province file would be according to Fennemn 

(1938);e,g, the Appalachian Highlands would be an example of a first order physiographic region, with the Blue Ridge Mountains as an exarrtple of a second order 

province and Pisgah Ridge as a third order subprovince, The individual species, 

dominants and all others present, in the cornunity type should be listed with the 

height, duration, growth form, diaspore and fidelity detemined for each (see 

Radford and mrtin, 1975). (See Table 2 ), 

CONCLUSIONS 

1, Any comprehensive natural area inventory should include the total biotic and 

habitat diversity, 

2, Managed areas of different moisture, pH and texture classes over different 

parent materials should be conserved within each climatic zone within the 

province for the perpetuation and study of the native and introduced species, 

particularly nioneer and transient species, 

3. Any standard.ization scheme for natural area inventories should include vegetational (witla faunistic conrponents), cbimtic, pedologic, geologic,topographic 

data by province, 

4, An acceptable standard natural area inventory system should have each character 

state properly circumscribed for each entry at each hierarchical level so that 

future studies and analyses will be comparable and correlative, 

5. The Natural Area Classification System should be made as compatible as possible 

with present classification systems for vegetation,,climate, soils, geology, 

topography and physiographic provinces, 

This is an open ended system that can be done as thoroughly as the time and 

experience of the investigator will permit, The system can be coded for data banking. 

Natural areas in a conservation system, or those being proposed, should not be continually investigated for the same thing, The information gathered about the region 

should be made available to subsequent investigators so that new field data resulting 

from each inventory can be added to the data bank, A11 taxa should be documented 

once, not eliminated by eager biologists collecting in each and every visit to an 

area. 

LITEMTURE CITED 

Fennemn, N, 1.1. 1938. Physiography of the eastern United States, New Pork: ?lfcGra~g-H%ll~ 

Sadford, A, E., and D, L. Martin, 1375, Potential ecological natural landmarks: Piedmont 

Region, eastern United States, Published report for National Park Service. 
rnctrn~m~rn yzGg5z 

c q c c c c c *P" "i* 'ii '4 'PI 'd +'Pi 

gOe*cm~b$e$b$ 

3 3 3 

Lki-lGGdG 

bbLb%4bh a)cUe;awc;a 

w4P4QdFktPi@4k 
A 

s-l 

V 

A 

V3 1D -a'-' 

C a mats mm ri BOW CW-ri 32h 

N?-(fr; 2.5 gEZi:U? 4d .@a B)B) cL3;JC Ztrd ad 0 ori-ci 4P?h &Fa 

a 

6 ** ,z hcCP1 - $ 

,-.a- 0 N or Q -ma ual 

3 LI ca, 

ggeG OOL, :!3 Qd 

Cdk WO &d a 

Cqd -r ,-. 
CONFERENCE ON ENDANGERED PLANTS IN THE SOUTHEAST 

Summary of the Conference 

G. R. Noggle, North Carolina State University 

The conference was organized to bring together botanists, foresters, natural i sts, and lay persons interested in the conservation and preservation of 

wild plants. No attempt was made to develop "1 ists" of endangered or threatened 

species; rather the emphasis was on 'examining the forces and circumstances l eading to the loss and disappearance of plants in various parts of the Southeastern 

Uni ted States. 

The discussions were grouped under five general topics, Following the 

presentation of several prepared papers, comments and remarks Prom the audience 

were heard, 

There was general agreement that the definitions developed by the Smithsonian f nsti tution were satisfactory. Endangered : an endangered species is 

one whose survival is known to be in serious jeopardy. Its peril may result 

from destruction or drastic modification of its specific habitat, over-exploi - 

tatibn by man, disease, predation, or specific competition due to natural succession. An endangered species must receive protection, or extinction probably 

will follow. Threatened: a threatened species is one that may likely become 

endangered if its habitat is not maintained, or if it is greatly exploited by 

man. These often are quite rare and should be mani tored continuouslye They 

must receive protection, 

Dr. James F. Matthews of UNC-C discussed the general philosophy sf naking 

l ists (preferably "determinations ") of endangered and threatened pl ant species. 

Local , regional, state and national input is needed and many peapl e must be involved in making appropriate determinations. In North Carolina a primary and 

secondary list has been prepared, Following pub1 ication sf the l ists further 

changes will be made. Terms such as "rare," ""marginal ," ""rlative abundance3" 

"exploited," and others were mentioned in the discussions but no attempt was 

made to define them. A forLhcoming publi~ation summarizing the proceedings of 

a Symposium held in September 1974 in Raleigh, N. C., deals with many of these 

questions. The publication and Threatened Plants and Annuals of 

North Carolina (300 p. ) can -8 he North Carolina State 

Museum of Natural History, P. 0, Box 27647, Raleigh, N* 6. 2761% * 

Gail Baker of the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service discussed the Endangered 

Species Act of 9973, a major piece of Federal legislation, This is a strong 

Act and can have a significant impact on threatened and endangered plants, One 

section of the Act requires that other Federal agencies and programs must be 

reviewed by the Secretary of Commerce or interior if they bear on the conserva- 
Lion and maintenance sf endangered and threatened species, Ansther section requires cosperaeion from the States, CooperaL?ve agreements between States and 

the Federal Government on land acquisition, management sf habitats, etc,,can be 

established, A model eooperatiw agreement has been prepared by the U. S' Fish 

& Wildlife Service and is available on request, 

In accordance with section 92 of the Act, the Smithsonian Institution grepared a fist a$ about 3,000 threatened or endangered plants in the U* S, and 

Hawaii, A list sf extinct plants a1 so was prepared, The list was published in 

Volume 40, No, 123, huesday, July I, 7 975, of the Federal Regl"ster. Such a publication is the first step in gei%ing the scientific community to corned on the 

list, 

Each state must establish guidelines for cooperating under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. Frank Barrack of the North Carolina Wild1 ife Resources 

Commission outlined actjvities in North Carolina concerning the State Endangered 

Species Act. Several kinds of activities are involved: development of lists 

(determinations) of endangered and threatened species ; in-depth studies of certain l isted species (grants to qua1 ified persons), and development of regulations; land acquisition of selected, critical habitats. At all levels the public must 

be informed of the work underway. The importance of developing in the public a 

respect For plants is stressed. 

Jerry McCollum sf the Georgia Department of Natg~aS Resources discussed 

their approach in es&abl ishing regulations to handle explai tation of plants, 

They are stressing habitat preservation wherein many plants might he protected. 

A law enforcement ac%;ivl"ty is being placed in the hands of ganse wa~dens, Inservice training sessions are being conducted for the game wardens, 

Arnold Krschmal sf the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station described 

pro~edures and techniques being used in propagating and growing some wild plants 

used for medicinal purposes, More basic information is needed on other plants 

before they can be brought into sultfvation, 

Raymend 0, Flagg sf the Carolina Biological Supply Co,, Burlington, N. C., 

described their activities in collecting and propagating Venus flytrap and sther 

i nsecli vsrous plants, 

From the discussisn that Pol lowed these presentations it appears that the 

survival of many plant species is threatened by indiscriminate collection practices, Phis kind of destruction by commercial operation can only be stopped by 

legal constraints on the possession and sale sf native plants, Law enforcement 

will be difficult but id can be done, 

A majsr theme throughout the entire conference was the preservation of endangered and threatened plants by establishing natural areas and habitats, The 

speakers described a number of public (Federal, State) and private (Nature Con- 
servancy , Society sf American Foresters) efforts to identi fy and conserve natural areas. 

Gary Waggoner, National Park Service, described their activities in identifying natural areas (on the basis of endangered species) worthy of preservation. These areas can be within the National Park or under other ownership. National Landmarks can be recognized on a voluntary basis by private owners. 

Gary Henry, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, described their role in seeing that the regulations established by the Endangered Species Act of 7973 are camplied with. The Fish & Wildlife Service manages about 34 million acres of Federal land in their refuge system. The land is identified as Landmark Areas, 

Research Areas, and Wilderness Areas, All will have certain components identified as deal ing with endangered and threatened species. Federal grants are available to states for the acquisition of wildlife areas. 

The Georgia Heritage Program was described by Charles Parrish of the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. A small staff has identified a number 

of habitats worthy of preservation--some because of endangered plants. To date 

about 21 thousand acres have been purchased. A major function of the Heritage 

Program is to acquaint citizens with their historical and biological sites and 

to develop a social consciousness in harmony with conserving and preserving endangered areas. 

Robert Chipley outlined programs of the Nature Conservancy. The programs 

are structured for habitat preservation. Through a memorandum of agreement with 

a State they identify endangered and threatened species in various habitats. 

After such determinations a protection plan is developed. 

The Society of American Foresters (Keith Argow) initiated a natural area 

registration program in 1947. Some 50 natural areas have now been identified 

in the United States. These are based on forest types. 

Roy Clarkson, West Virginia University, and Robert Kral , Vanderbil t University, discussed the problems of determining the distribution of plants and 

their geographical ranges. Regional manual s, monographs, herbarium col 1 ections, 

and journal articles contain much information, but a great deal of field work 

remains to be done before complete determinations can be made, 

Frank McCormick of the University of Tennessee discussed the general philosophy of species preservation, Species exist as populations and must be understood as components sf ecosystems, Science, ethics, la^, and economics should 

be pull ed together to construct a surface amenabl e to ecosystem preservation. 

James Massey, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, set out a framework for understanding species biology and species preservation. Species can be 

understood in terms of reproduction, dispersal , establ ishment , and maintenance, 

all within the emsystem concept. 
As a conc4urisn to the presentation on species biology, A1 Radfsrd, Universi ty of North Carol ina at Chapel Hi1 1, presented a Natural Area Classif ication System. The proposed system attempts to describe a basic standardization 

scheme for mare efftcient and effective inventory and storage and retrieval of 

information on natural areas, vegetation, floras and rare, endangered and 

threatened species, 

A1 l of the formal presentations were followed by questions and answers 

from the approximately 166 persons in attendance, All levels of involvement 

are essential if an eFfective program sf preservation of endangered and threatened species is to be implemented. "Running along in front of the bulldozer" 

is important under many situations, and concerned citizens can change the way 

dwel opers , expl oi lers , and others view our envi rsnment *