Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33159 

■ 7. On page 25492, top half of the page, 

the table titled ‘‘Table V.H–14: 

Previously Established Performance 

Standards for the FY 2026 Program 

Year’’, the entries for the clinical 

outcomes domain’s achievement 

thresholds and benchmarks are 

corrected to read as follows: 

TABLE V.H–14—PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE FY 2026 PROGRAM YEAR

Measure short name Achievement 

threshold Benchmark 

Clinical Outcomes Domain 

MORT–30–AMI ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.874426 0.890687 

MORT–30–HF .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.885949 0.912874 

MORT–30–PN (updated cohort) .............................................................................................................................. 0.843369 0.877097 

MORT–30–COPD .................................................................................................................................................... 0.914691 0.932157 

MORT–30–CABG .................................................................................................................................................... 0.970568 0.980473 

COMP–HIP–KNEE * ................................................................................................................................................ 0.024019 0.016873 

* Lower values represent better performance. 

■ 8. On page 25588, second column, 

footnote paragraph (footnote 1232), lines 

3 through 5, the phrase ‘‘2018: https:// 

www.arthritis.org/Documents/Sections/ 

About-Arthritis/arthritis-facts-statsfigures.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2019.’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘2019: https://

www.arthritis.org/getmedia/e1256607- 

fa87-4593-aa8a-8db4f291072a/2019- 

abtn-final-march-2019.pdf. Accessed 

May 13, 2021.’’ 

Karuna Seshasai, 

Executive Secretary to the Department, 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13481 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0063; 

FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 212] 

RIN 1018–BD83 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassifying Smooth 

Coneflower as Threatened With 

Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

reclassify from endangered to 

threatened (‘‘downlist’’) the smooth 

coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) due to improvements in 

the species’ overall status since the 

original listing in 1992. This proposed 

action is based on a thorough review of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information, which 

indicates that the species’ status has 

improved such that it is not currently in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, but that 

it is still likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. This proposed rule 

completes the 5-year status review for 

the species, initiated on March 12, 2018. 

If this proposal is finalized, smooth 

coneflower would be reclassified as a 

threatened species under the Act. We 

seek information, data, and comments 

from the public on this proposal. We 

also propose to establish a rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act for the protection 

of smooth coneflower. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or August 23, 

2021. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, by August 9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the Docket Number for this 

proposed rule, which is FWS–R4–ES– 

2020–0063. Then, click on the Search 

button. On the resulting page, in the 

Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, check the Proposed Rule box to 

locate this document. You may submit 

a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0063, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide to us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Document availability: This proposed 

rule and supporting documents 

(including the Recovery Plan) are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020– 

0063. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete 

Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological 

Services Field Office, 551–F Pylon 

Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 

(919) 856–4520. Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species may warrant 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened if it no longer meets the 

definition of endangered (in danger of 

extinction). The smooth coneflower is 

listed as endangered, and we are 

proposing to reclassify the smooth 

coneflower as threatened (i.e., 

‘‘downlist’’ the species) because we 

have determined it is not currently in 

danger of extinction. Downlisting a 

species as a threatened species can only 

be made by issuing a rulemaking. 

What this document does. This rule 

proposes to reclassify the smooth 

coneflower from endangered to 

threatened on the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants 

(List), with a rule issued under section 

4(d) of the Act to ensure the continued 

conservation of this species. This rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33160 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

also serves to complete the 5-year 

review for the smooth coneflower. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. This five-factor analysis 

applies whether we are proposing to 

newly list a species as endangered or 

threatened, change its classification, or 

remove the species from listing. We may 

reclassify a species if the best available 

commercial and scientific data indicate 

the species no longer meets the 

applicable definition in the Act. We 

have determined that the smooth 

coneflower is no longer in danger of 

extinction and, therefore, does not meet 

the Act’s definition of an endangered 

species, but the species does meet the 

Act’s definition of a threatened species 

because it is still affected by current and 

ongoing habitat loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation from development. 

Existing management and regulatory 

mechanisms are not sufficient to protect 

the species from these threats such that 

it is not in danger of extinction the 

foreseeable future. 

We are proposing to promulgate a 

section 4(d) rule. We propose to prohibit 

the activities identified under section 

9(a)(2) of the Act for endangered species 

as a means to provide protections to the 

smooth coneflower. We also propose 

specific exceptions from these 

prohibitions for our State agency 

partners, so that they may continue with 

certain activities covered by an 

approved cooperative agreement to 

carry out conservation programs that 

will facilitate the conservation and 

recovery of the species. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) Reasons we should or should not 

reclassify the smooth coneflower as a 

threatened species, and if we should 

consider delisting the species. 

(2) New information on the historical 

and current status, range, distribution, 

and population size of the smooth 

coneflower. 

(3) New information on the known 

and potential threats to the smooth 

coneflower, including fire management, 

regulatory mechanisms, and any new 

management actions that have been 

implemented, and whether management 

would continue should the species be 

delisted. 

(4) New information regarding the life 

history, ecology, and habitat use of the 

smooth coneflower. 

(5) Current or planned activities 

within the geographic range of the 

smooth coneflower that may have 

adverse or beneficial impacts on the 

species. 

(6) Information on regulations that are 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the smooth 

coneflower and that the Service can 

consider in developing a 4(d) rule for 

the species. 

(7) Information concerning the extent 

to which we should include any of the 

section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or 

whether any other forms of take should 

be excepted from the prohibitions in the 

4(d) rule. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) directs that a determination as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

determinations may differ from this 

proposal. Based on the new information 

we receive (and any comments on that 

new information), we may conclude that 

the smooth coneflower should remain 

listed as endangered instead of being 

reclassified as a threatened, or we may 

conclude that the species no longer 

warrants listing as either an endangered 

species or a threatened species. In 

addition, we may change the parameters 

of any prohibitions or conservation 

measures if we conclude it is 

appropriate in light of comments and 

new information received. For example, 

we may expand the incidental take 

prohibitions to include activities that 

this proposed rule would allow if we 

conclude that such additional activities 

are likely to cause direct injury or 

mortality to the species. Conversely, we 

may establish additional exceptions to 

the incidental take prohibitions so as to 

allow activities that this proposed rule 

would prohibit if we conclude that such 

activities would not cause direct injury 

or mortality to the species and will 

facilitate the conservation and recovery 

of the species. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register at least 15 days before 

the hearing. For the immediate future, 

we will provide these public hearings 

using webinars that will be announced 

on the Service’s website, in addition to 

an announcement in the Federal 

Register. The use of these virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy, 

‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities,’’ which 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33161 

34270), and our August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memorandum, ‘‘Peer Review 

Process’’ (Service 2016), which updates 

and clarifies the July 1, 1994 policy, we 

will seek the expert opinion of at least 

three appropriate and independent 

specialists regarding scientific data and 

interpretations contained in this 

proposed rule. The purpose of such 

review is to ensure that our decisions 

are based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analysis. We will send 

peer reviewers copies of this proposed 

rule immediately following publication 

in the Federal Register. We will ensure 

that the opinions of peer reviewers are 

objective and unbiased by following the 

guidelines set forth in the Director’s 

Memorandum. We will invite these peer 

reviewers to comment during the public 

comment period on both the proposed 

reclassification of smooth coneflower 

and the proposed 4(d) rule. We will 

summarize the opinions of these 

reviewers in the final decision 

documents, and we will consider the 

comments and information we receive 

from peer reviewers during the public 

comment period on this proposed rule, 

as we prepare a final rule. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 8, 1992, we published in 

the Federal Register (57 FR 46340) a 

final rule listing smooth coneflower as 

an endangered species. The final rule 

identified the following threats to 

smooth coneflower: Extirpation due to 

the absence of natural disturbance (fire 

and/or grazing), highway construction 

and improvement, gas line installation, 

residential and industrial development, 

collecting (for horticulture and 

pharmaceutical industries), herbicide 

use on highway and utility rights-ofway, encroachment of exotic species, 

and suspected beetle damage. On April 

18, 1995, we published the recovery 

plan for this plant (Service 1995, entire). 

On August 2, 2011, we completed a 5- 

year review for the smooth coneflower 

(Service 2011, entire). In that review, we 

recommended that we should downlist 

the species to threatened because a 

substantial number of new occurrences 

of the species have been located since 

completion of the recovery plan. The 

2011 review is a supplemental 

document to this proposed rule and is 

provided at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020– 

0063. 

On March 12, 2018, we initiated 

another 5-year review (83 FR 10737). 

This proposed rule completes that 

review. 

For additional details on previous 

Federal actions, see discussion under 

Recovery, below. Also see http://

www.fws.gov/endangered/species/usspecies.html for the species profile for 

this plant. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in 

This Proposed Rule 

DOD = Department of Defense 

EO = element occurrence 

GADNR = Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

GPCA = Georgia Plant Conservation 

Alliance 

MOU = memorandum of understanding 

NCBG = North Carolina Botanical Garden 

NCDACS = North Carolina Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services 

NCDOT = North Carolina Department of 

Transportation 

NCNHP = North Carolina Natural Heritage 

Program 

NCPCP = North Carolina Plant 

Conservation Program 

ROW = right-of-way 

SCDNR = South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources 

SCDOT = South Carolina Department of 

Transportation 

SCHTP = South Carolina Heritage Trust 

Program 

TNC = The Nature Conservancy 

USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDOE = U.S. Department of Energy 

USFS = U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 

USGS = U.S. Geological Survey 

VADCR = Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation 

VADNH = Virginia Division of Natural 

Heritage 

I. Proposed Reclassification 

Determination 

Background 

Species Information 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, ecology, and overall 

viability of smooth coneflower is 

presented in the recovery plan (Service 

1995, entire) and the 5-year review 

(Service 2011, entire). Below, we 

present a summary of the biological and 

distributional information discussed in 

those documents and new information 

published or obtained through 

coordination with species experts and 

data synthesis since then. 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Smooth coneflower is a perennial 

herb in the aster family (Asteraceae). It 

was first described as Brauneria 

laevigata by Boynton and Beadle in 

1903, from material collected in South 

Carolina (SC) in 1888. It was transferred 

to the genus Echinacea in 1929 (Small 

1933, p. 1421; McGregor 1968, p. 120). 

Smooth coneflower grows up to 1.5 

meters (59 inches (in)) tall from a 

vertical root stock; stems are smooth, 

with few leaves. Large basal leaves, 

which reach 15 centimeters (cm) (5.9 in) 

in length and 8 cm (3.2 in) in width, 

have long petioles. They are elliptical to 

broadly lanceolate, taper to the base, 

and are smooth to slightly rough. The 

midstem leaves are smaller than the 

basal leaves. Flower heads are usually 

solitary and are composed of ray flowers 

and disk flowers. The ray flowers (petallike structures on composite flower 

heads) are light pink to purplish, 

strongly drooping, and 5 to 8 cm (1.9 to 

3.1 in) long. Disk flowers (tiny tubular 

flowers in the central portion of 

composite flower head) are about 5 

millimeters (mm) (0.2 in) long; have 

tubular purple corollas; and have mostly 

erect, short triangular teeth (McGregor 

1968, p. 129; Radford et al. 1968, p. 

1110; Kral 1983, p. 1135; Gaddy 1991, 

p. 4; Gleason and Cronquist 1991, p. 

532; Weakley 2015, p. 1114). 

Reproductive Biology 

Flowering occurs from May through 

July, and fruits develop from late June 

to September (Gaddy 1991, p. 18). 

Sexual reproduction results in a graybrown, oblong-prismatic achene (dry, 

one-seeded fruit), usually four-angled, 

and 4 to 5 mm (0.16 to 0.20 in) long 

(Kral 1983, p. 1135; Gaddy 1991, p. 4). 

Asexual reproduction in the form of 

short clonal rhizomes make new rosettes 

in both garden and wild settings (Kunz 

2018, pers. comm.). Pollinators for 

smooth coneflower include various 

species of butterflies, wasps, and bees 

(Collins and Fore 2009, pp. 452–454). 

The smooth coneflower is dependent on 

insect pollinators for cross pollination; 

bees are the most effective pollinators, 

while skippers and butterflies are 

frequent nectar foragers (Gadd 2006, p. 

15). 

Based on observations of the closely 

related Tennessee purple coneflower 

(Echinacea tennesseensis), seeds are 

probably dispersed by seed-eating birds 

or mammals such as goldfinches 

(Spinus tristis) and white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus) (Service 1989, 

p. 9). Smooth coneflower seeds only 

appear to germinate on bare soil (Gadd 

2006, p. 20). Walker (2009, p. 12) failed 

to recover any smooth coneflower seeds 

from the soil seed bank (natural storage 

of seeds in the soil) at three North 

Carolina (NC) sites; however, he was 

able to recover smooth coneflower seeds 

in both spring and fall leaf litter 

samples. While the recovery plan 

mentions that reproductive success is 

generally poor in this species (Service 

1995, p. 5), Gadd (2006, p. 17) found 

that smooth coneflower plants at three 

NC sites are not pollinator-limited and 

even short visits by pollinators result in 

seed set. Recent augmentation/ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33162 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

reintroduction projects have been 

successful in Georgia (GA), NC, and SC 

using nursery-grown plants (Alley 2018, 

pers. comm; Mackie, USFS 2018, pers. 

comm.; Kunz 2018, pers. comm.). 

Distribution and Abundance 

In this proposed rule, we follow 

guidance for defining EOs and 

populations described by NatureServe 

(2002, pp. 10–11; NatureServe 2004, pp. 

6, 14). We define an EO as any current 

(or historical) location where smooth 

coneflower occurs (or occurred), 

regardless of the spatial relationship 

with other EOs. We define a population 

as either a stand-alone EO isolated by 

distance of unsuitable habitat (separated 

from other EOs by 2 kilometers (km) (1.2 

miles (mi)) or more), or as a principal 

EO. A principal EO is two or more EOs 

located less than or equal to 2 km (1.2 

mi) from each other, with suitable 

habitat in between them. For the 

purposes of evaluating the recovery of 

this species, it is most appropriate to 

consider populations rather than 

individual EOs. 

At the time of listing in 1992, this 

plant had 21 extant populations (57 FR 

46340; October 8, 1992). When the 

recovery plan was written in 1995, there 

were 24 known populations rangewide, 

with an additional 3 populations in SC 

that were considered of cultivated origin 

at that time but are now believed to be 

natural populations, for a total of 27 

populations (Service 1995, p. 2). Several 

new smooth coneflower occurrences 

have been discovered since the time of 

listing, including 15 in GA, 11 in NC, 

28 in SC, and 10 in Virginia (VA) 

(GADNR 2019, unpaginated; NCNHP 

2019, unpaginated; SCHTP 2019, 

unpaginated; VADNH 2018, 

unpaginated; White 2018, p. 6). 

Current State Natural Heritage 

Program database records document 44 

extant populations of smooth 

coneflower (Table 1). 

TABLE 1—TOTAL NUMBER OF EXTANT POPULATIONS OF SMOOTH CONEFLOWER THAT OCCUR IN EACH STATE WITHIN THE

RANGE OF THE SPECIES

[GADNR 2019, unpaginated; NCNHP 2019, unpaginated; SCHTP 2019, unpaginated; VADNH 2018, unpaginated; White 2018, entire] 

State Number of extant 

populations 

Virginia (VA) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 

North Carolina (NC) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

South Carolina (SC) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

Georgia (GA) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 

Totals ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 

A single collection of this species 

from Maryland may represent a waif (a 

plant outside of its natural range) 

(Reveal and Broome 1982, p. 194). One 

herbarium specimen from Lancaster 

County, Pennsylvania (PA), is on file at 

the Missouri Botanical Garden. No 

additional collections have been made 

from PA. The PA Natural Heritage 

Program considers this species to be 

extirpated in the State (Kunsman 2018, 

pers. comm.). 

Range and Habitat 

At the time of listing in 1992, all of 

the known smooth coneflower 

populations occurred in the piedmont 

or mountain physiographic provinces of 

GA, SC, NC, and VA. Since listing, new 

populations have been found in the 

inner coastal plain/sandhills region of 

SC (White 2018, p. 4) and the coastal 

plain of GA (Moffet 2018, pers. comm.). 

Smooth coneflower is typically found 

in open woods, glades, cedar barrens, 

roadsides, clear cuts, dry limestone 

bluffs, and power line ROWs. The 

species is usually found on magnesiumand calcium-rich soils associated with 

amphibolite, dolomite, or limestone (in 

VA); gabbro (in NC and VA); diabase (in 

NC and SC); marble, sandy loams, chert, 

and amphibolites (in SC and GA); and 

shallow soils with minor bedrock 

exposures (in GA) (Service 1995, pp. 2– 

3; White 2018, p. 4; GADNR 2019, 

unpaginated). The healthiest smooth 

coneflower populations are managed 

with prescribed fire or mechanical 

thinning, which provides the smooth 

coneflower plants abundant sunlight 

and little competition from other plant 

species (Gaddy 1991, p. 1). 

Population Structure 

Land managers and biologists have 

routinely monitored smooth coneflower 

populations since before the species was 

listed in 1992. Monitoring at most 

populations usually involves a 

flowering stem count, while each rosette 

of leaves is counted at some sites. 

Flowering stem counts are generally the 

most common survey method because 

they require less time and biologists 

generally agree that plants produce no 

more than one flowering stem per 

growing season, making this method a 

conservative count of how many plants 

actually exist at a site. Basal rosettes and 

plants in vegetative state (nonflowering) can be very hard to find and 

count in dense herbaceous vegetation 

(NCPCP 2018, unpaginated; White 2018, 

entire). 

The species displays a relatively high 

level of genetic diversity based on 

analyses across the range of populations 

(Peters et al. 2009, pp. 12–13). There is 

also significant population genetic 

differentiation and a majority of the 

genetic variance is attributed to 

variation within populations, suggesting 

that populations may be adapting to 

local environments (Apsit and Dixon 

2001, entire). Because this genetic 

variation exists, all populations should 

be maintained to conserve genetic 

diversity since each population contains 

only a subset of the total genetic 

variation. Regional population 

differentiation may be important in the 

selection of material to establish new 

populations, which suggests that, for 

greatest success, reintroduction projects 

use local source material (Apsit and 

Dixon 2001, p. 76). 

Recovery 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species, 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Recovery plans must, to the 

maximum extent practicable, include 

objective, measurable criteria which, 

when met, would result in a 

determination, in accordance with the 

provisions of section 4 of the Act, that 

the species be removed from the List. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33163 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species, is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently, and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all of the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

Recovery Criteria 

The Smooth Coneflower Recovery 

Plan was approved by the Service on 

April 18, 1995 (Service 1995, entire). It 

includes recovery criteria intended to 

indicate when threats to the species 

have been addressed to the point the 

species may no longer meet the 

definition of endangered or threatened 

and describes actions or tasks necessary 

to achieve those criteria. 

The recovery plan identifies five 

downlisting criteria for smooth 

coneflower (Service 1995, p. 12): 

1. Twelve (12) geographically distinct, 

self-sustaining populations are 

protected across the species’ range, 

including populations in at least two 

counties in VA, two counties in NC, two 

counties in SC, and one county in GA; 

2. At least nine of these populations 

must be in areas within the species’ 

native ecosystem (not in gardens or 

similar artificial settings) that are in 

permanent conservation ownership and 

management; 

3. Managers have been designated for 

each protected population; 

4. Management plans have been 

developed and implemented for each 

protected population; and 

5. Populations have been maintained 

at stable or increasing levels for 5 years. 

The recovery plan also identifies the 

following five delisting criteria for the 

smooth coneflower (Service 1995, p. 

12): 

1. Fifteen (15) geographically distinct, 

self-sustaining populations are 

protected across the species’ range, 

including populations in at least two 

counties in VA, two counties in NC, two 

counties in SC, and one county in GA; 

2. At least nine of these populations 

must be in areas within the species’ 

native ecosystem (not in gardens or 

similar artificial settings) that are in 

permanent conservation ownership and 

management; 

3. Managers have been designated for 

each protected population; 

4. Management plans have been 

developed and implemented for each 

protected population; and 

5. Populations have been maintained 

at stable or increasing levels for 10 

years. 

Downlisting/Delisting Criteria 1 and 2 

(Fifteen Protected Self-Sustaining 

Populations in Native Ecosystem) 

Not only have both of the downlisting 

criteria for protected self-sustaining 

populations been met, but both delisting 

criteria as well. We currently know of 

44 extant populations throughout the 

species’ range. Of those 44, 16 

populations ranked with excellent to 

good viability are found in areas where 

the habitat is under protective status 

(like a National Forest). As of 2019, 33 

smooth coneflower populations are 

either on Federal lands or are in 

conservation ownership (9 in GA, 5 in 

NC, 12 in SC, and 7 in VA), 16 of which 

are ranked A (excellent viability), AB 

(excellent/good viability), or B (good 

viability) by their respective State 

Natural Heritage Programs (4 in GA, 3 

in NC, 5 in SC, and 4 in VA). These 

populations are considered protected 

because they occur on several National 

Forests managed by the USFS, as well 

as lands owned and managed by State 

agencies, TNC, USACE, USDOE, and 

DOD. Management plans in existence 

for many of these populations are 

detailed below. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33164 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

With regard to the requirement in 

Criterion 1 that populations be selfsustaining, we evaluated the resiliency 

of each population by looking at the 

ranks as assigned by the State Natural 

Heritage Programs. These 16 protected 

populations are ranked either A, B, or 

AB (six are ranked A, five are ranked 

AB, and five are ranked B (see Table 2, 

above)). These 16 resilient populations 

are scattered across the range of the 

species, including one county in GA 

(Stephens), two counties in NC (Durham 

and Granville), two counties in SC 

(Barnwell and Oconee), and three 

counties in VA (Franklin, Halifax, and 

Montgomery). These populations span 

mountain, piedmont, and coastal plain 

physiographic provinces. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP24JN21.006</GPH>

Table 2. State distribution, Heritage program rank, ownership, and availability of 

management plan for the most resilient, protected populations. 

State Population Name Heritage Rank* Ownership Management Plan? 

GA GA-A AB Federal es 

GA GA-B B Federal es 

GA GA-C B Federal 

SC SC-B B Federal 

SC SC-C A Federai State 

SC SC-D A Federal 

VA V A-B A Private 

VA VA-C AB State no 

VA V A-D AB State yes 

* Heritage Ranks: A= excellent viability; AB= excellent/good viability; B = good 

viabili 

,, ' ,:ty ,, n, "'""'' ,.,, ,,. ''""" 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33165 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

TABLE 4—NUMBER OF PROTECTED POPULATIONS WITH EXCELLENT TO GOOD VIABILITY (A- to B-Ranked) AND HIGH TO

MEDIUM RESILIENCY BY STATE

[GADNR 2019, unpaginated; NCNHP 2019, unpaginated; SCHTP 2019, unpaginated; VADNH, 2018, unpaginated; White 2018, entire] 

State 

NatureServe rank 

A AB B 

High 

resiliency 

Medium high 

resiliency 

Medium 

resiliency 

VA ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2 0 

NC ................................................................................................................................................ 2 0 1 

SC ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2 1 

GA ................................................................................................................................................ 0 1 3 

Total Populations .................................................................................................................. 6 5 5 

All of these populations occur in the 

species’ natural ecosystem, which 

includes habitats such as open 

woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, and 

other habitat that is usually (but not 

always) found on magnesium- and 

calcium-rich soil. For many of the larger 

A- and B-ranked populations, the site 

ranks have not changed significantly 

over recent years. 

The remaining 28 extant populations 

are ranked C (fair viability), D (poor 

viability), or E (extant, but their viability 

has not been assessed). A rank of X is 

given to sites considered to be 

extirpated, where evidence indicates 

that the species no longer exists in that 

location. A rank of H is given to sites 

considered to be historical, where recent 

field information verifying the 

continued existence of the population is 

lacking. We estimated that C-, D-, and Eranked populations have low resiliency, 

and sites ranked H or X were not 

evaluated for resiliency because plants 

have not been found at those sites in 

recent years. 

Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 3 

(Managers Have Been Designated for 

Each Protected Population) 

We verified ownership and 

management status of each of the 16 

resilient, protected populations on 

Federal, State, and private conservation 

lands, to ensure that a land manager 

responsible for overseeing the 

management of smooth coneflower has 

been assigned. The four resilient 

populations in GA are managed by the 

USFS (Chattahoochee-Oconee National 

Forest) with assistance from the Atlanta 

Botanical Garden and State Botanical 

Garden of Georgia. The three resilient 

populations in NC are managed by the 

NCDACS (Research Stations Division), 

NCPCP, USACE, and NCBG. In SC, most 

of the resilient populations occur on the 

Sumter National Forest, and four of the 

five resilient populations are managed 

by the Sumter National Forest, with one 

of those sites being co-owned and 

managed by SCHTP as a Heritage Trust 

Preserve. The other resilient population, 

at the Savannah River Site, is owned by 

the USDOE and managed by the USFS. 

In VA, the four resilient populations are 

managed by the VADNH, USFS (George 

Washington National Forest), and TNC. 

Site managers have been identified for 

all 16 resilient populations identified 

under Criteria 1 and 2 above; therefore, 

we consider this criterion to have been 

met. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP24JN21.007</GPH>

Table 3. Smooth coneflower ranking criteria. 

Heritage Rank Viability Number of Plants Size and Type of Habitat Management Regime 

> 1,000; flowering >5 acres (>2 hectares); open (disturbed) from 

A Excellent open glade or prairie periodic fires, optimal annually remnant soil conditions 

100-1,000; most 1-5 acres; open glade or mostly open by periodic 

B Good fires or other flowering annually prairie remnant disturbance 

any size glade or prairie 

10-100; 50% or remnant; or isolated 

C Fair fewer flowering roadside or utility ROW limited 

annually with remnant glade or 

prairie flora 

D Poor <10; may not flower remnant glades or isolated limited annually ROWs 
33166 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 4 

(Management Plans Implemented) 

Because smooth coneflower requires 

early to mid-successional habitat, all 

resilient populations have received and 

will require some form of management 

in perpetuity to help maintain habitat in 

the right balance so that populations can 

thrive. Management techniques include 

the use of prescribed fire, well-timed 

mowing, mechanical clearing (including 

the use of chain saws to cut trees), and 

herbicides (selectively applied to cut 

stumps to prevent regrowth). All of 

these management actions have been 

implemented separately or in 

combination to sustain suitable habitat 

for smooth coneflower. Of the 16 

resilient populations considered in 

Criteria 1 and 2, 13 of them can be 

considered to be included in 

management plans. However, these 

plans vary in scope and level of 

specificity toward smooth coneflower, 

and most plans are outdated. Only six 

of the plans are specific to the 

management of smooth coneflower, 

while the others address the overall 

management of an entire site but 

include some actions that may be 

beneficial to smooth coneflower. Of the 

six plans that are specific to the 

management of smooth coneflower, four 

were developed in the mid-1990s, and 

two were developed in the early 2000s. 

In the past 20 years, we have learned a 

lot about how to best manage the 

species with fire, as well as how to 

manage for invasive species. Many of 

these management practices need to be 

incorporated into older management 

plans. 

Management plans exist for three of 

the four highly resilient smooth 

coneflower populations in VA, although 

new information about fire intervals 

could improve management of several 

sites (e.g., VA–A, VA–B, and VA–D) 

(Heffernan et al. 2002, pp. 1–2; SanJule 

2007, p. 5; USDA Forest Service 2014, 

entire). In NC, the site of the largest 

smooth coneflower population (NC–B) 

has been actively managed using 

prescribed fire, mowing, and other 

mechanical means as recommended by 

species experts (Barnett-Lawrence 1994, 

pp. 18–20, Appendix 10; BarnettLawrence 1995, pp. 18–19; NCNHP 

1996, unpaginated), but two of the 

highly resilient populations lack 

management plans altogether. In SC, all 

resilient populations occurring on the 

Sumter National Forest in SC (SC–A, 

SC–B, SC–C, and SC–D) are managed by 

prescribed fire and mechanical clearing. 

While the Sumter National Forest 

Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan is from 2004, this 

plan directs the USFS to maintain or 

restore at least eight self-sustaining 

populations of smooth coneflower 

(USDA Forest Service 2004b, pp. 2–9; 

Roecker 2001, entire), a practice that is 

in effect today. In GA, the USFS 

adequately uses prescribed fire, 

mechanical clearing, and herbicide 

application to maintain open, glade-like 

woodland habitat for smooth coneflower 

and associated species at resilient 

populations (GA–A, GA–B, GA–C, and 

GA–D). 

In summary, 13 of the 16 most 

resilient (A-, AB-, and B-ranked) smooth 

coneflower populations are included in 

management plans, but only six of them 

specifically address smooth coneflower 

management. These plans vary in level 

of detail, scope, and time commitment, 

and several need to be updated with 

improved fire management and invasive 

species management practices. We find 

that the implementation of regular, 

dedicated management for the resilient 

populations is the reason these smooth 

coneflower populations are large, 

healthy, and viable, and contribute 

toward the recovery of the species. 

However, the Service considers 

Delisting Criterion 4 for smooth 

coneflower to have been only partially 

met since not all populations have 

management plans, and several of the 

existing plans are out of date. The 

Service has developed a template 

management plan that land managers 

can use as a guide when developing or 

updating rare species management 

plans, particularly those that focus on 

smooth coneflower management, and 

we will be working toward getting all 

plans established and updated as part of 

our ongoing recovery work. 

Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 5 (Stable 

or Increasing Populations for 5 or 10 

Years) 

Land managers conduct site visits to 

their respective smooth coneflower 

populations on a regular basis to assess 

population size and health and to 

determine what management actions, if 

any, are needed. Monitoring generally 

involves a flowering stem count, which 

is a conservative count of how many 

plants exist at a site (NCPCP 2018, 

unpaginated; White 2018, entire). 

Virginia smooth coneflower 

populations occur on USFS, TNC, and 

VADCR lands. These sites have been 

monitored by their respective land 

managers and researchers over the last 

30 years. Because several of the smooth 

coneflower preserves in VA are large in 

size, a complete census has not been 

conducted every year, although the sites 

have been generally monitored during 

regular management activities. Resilient 

populations VA–A and VA–B have been 

actively monitored since 2014 (Collins 

et al., (2014, entire; Collins and Huish 

2018, entire). VA–A has been stable 

since 1977; VA–B has been stable since 

1992. The remaining two resilient 

populations have been stable since their 

discovery in 1992–1993. 

Land managers in NC have collected 

monitoring data on their smooth 

coneflower populations for many years. 

The NCPCP and NCNHP have compiled 

monitoring records going back to 1988 

(NCPCP 2018, unpaginated; NCNHP 

2019, unpaginated; Barnett-Lawrence 

1994, entire; Barnett-Lawrence 1995, 

entire; Lunsford ca 2003). The NCPCP 

began monitoring some of their 

populations as early as 1988, and then 

initiated a more consistent monitoring 

program in 2004, or the year in which 

a population was discovered (whichever 

was later). Smooth coneflower plants at 

NC–B have been monitored since 1989. 

Sites managed by NCBG have been 

monitored regularly since 2004. 

Populations managed by USACE have 

been monitored intermittently since 

1989, and regularly since 2004. In 2018, 

NCPCP summarized the monitoring data 

and suggested trends for all NC 

populations as part of their annual 

section 6 (of the Act) report. Of the 

resilient smooth coneflower populations 

in Durham and Granville Counties, one 

(NC–A) has been increasing over the 14- 

year monitoring period, and two (NC–B 

and NC–C) are stable (NC–B) over the 

31-year monitoring period (NCPCP 

2018, unpaginated). 

South Carolina sites on the Sumter 

National Forest and a State-owned 

Heritage Preserve have been monitored 

since 1990 (White 2018, p. 6, table 1). 

White (2018, entire) recently conducted 

a status survey of all of the smooth 

coneflower sites in SC. His final report 

compiled all smooth coneflower 

monitoring data in SC, and determined 

that since 2006, trends indicated that 

five of the seven Sumter National Forest 

populations are increasing, and one is 

stable, while the status of one 

population is unknown due to 

insufficient data. Of the five populations 

that are increasing in size, four are 

considered to be resilient (SC–A, SC–B, 

SC–C, and SC–D). The first smooth 

coneflower population at the Savannah 

River Site was discovered in 1988, and 

populations there have been monitored 

periodically since the mid-1990s. The 

most recent comprehensive monitoring 

and inventory was conducted in 2015 

and 2017 (Brewer and Prater 2015, p. 4; 

White 2018, entire). White (2018, p. 11) 

determined that since 2000, two 

Savannah River Site populations are 

stable (including resilient population 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33167 

SC–E), while two populations are 

possibly declining. To summarize the 

trends for the most resilient SC smooth 

coneflower populations, four appear to 

be increasing in size, and one is 

considered stable, for at least the past 14 

years. 

All four of the most resilient smooth 

coneflower populations in GA occur on 

the Chattahoochee-Oconee National 

Forest in northeastern GA. Biologists 

with the USFS, State Botanical Garden 

of Georgia, Atlanta Botanical Garden, 

GADNR, and GPCA have visited these 

populations on a regular basis since the 

species was proposed for listing in 1991 

and a Statewide status survey was 

conducted in 2000 (Sullivan 2000, 

entire). Monitoring data are intermittent, 

but the four resilient populations have 

been considered stable for the past 20 

years since the Statewide status survey 

(Suiter 2020, pers. comm.). 

Without more detailed data, it is 

difficult to determine specific trends, 

but based on our analysis of monitoring 

data and recent observations, we 

conclude that all of the 16 A-, AB-, and 

B-ranked (resilient) protected 

populations have been stable or 

increasing for more than 10 years; 

therefore, we consider this recovery 

criterion to have been met. 

Summary 

The implementation of recovery 

actions for smooth coneflower has 

significantly reduced the risk of 

extinction for the species. As indicated 

above, many smooth coneflower 

populations are protected on public 

(Federal and State) and private lands, 

such as TNC preserves in VA. The most 

resilient smooth coneflower populations 

(i.e., those considered contributing to 

species’ recovery) are considered stable 

or increasing. Current information 

indicates that smooth coneflower is 

more abundant, and its range is 

somewhat larger, than when the species 

was listed. However, management plans 

for all protected populations are lacking, 

as only six specifically focus on 

management for smooth coneflower. 

Many of the existing management plans 

are out of date, from the 1990s and early 

2000s, or are not being currently 

implemented. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. We consider these same five 

factors in reclassifying a species from 

endangered to threatened (50 CFR 

424.11(c) and (d)). Even though we are 

not proposing to delist the species at 

this time, we also consider the risk to 

the species if it were not listed under 

the Act to better understand the species’ 

future without the protections of the 

Act. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species—such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

foreseeable future extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

When we listed smooth coneflower as 

an endangered species (57 FR 46340; 

October 8, 1992), the identified threats 

(factors) were the absence of natural 

disturbance (fire and/or grazing), 

highway construction and 

improvement, gas line installation, and 

residential and industrial development 

(Factor A); collecting (Factor B); beetle 

damage (Factor C); inadequacy of 

existing State regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D); and low genetic variability, 

herbicide use, and possible 

encroachment of exotic species (Factor 

E). 

The following analysis evaluates these 

previously identified threats, any other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33168 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

threats currently facing the species, and 

any other threats that are reasonably 

likely to affect the species in the 

foreseeable future. 

Habitat Degradation or Loss Due To 

Development and Absence of Natural 

Disturbance 

Smooth coneflower plants require 

open, sunny conditions to survive. 

Without regular disturbance such as 

fire, woody shrubs and trees create a 

dense canopy that prevents sunlight 

from reaching the forest floor where this 

herbaceous species occurs. Smooth 

coneflower is intolerant of dense shade 

and tends to die out after a few years of 

shady conditions. 

Smooth coneflower occurrences on 

private land are vulnerable to habitat 

loss due to degradation, which results 

from fire suppression or the absence of 

other disturbances that maintain the 

habitat in an open state. For example, in 

Rockingham County, NC, a small 

smooth coneflower population occurred 

on private land in an open woodland 

between a highway and a railroad track. 

The lack of management or fire resulted 

in the site becoming overgrown, and no 

plants have been observed there in 

recent years. To encourage smooth 

coneflower growth, the site needs fire or 

mechanical disturbance in order to 

remove woody vegetation and open the 

forest floor to sunlight (NCNHP 2019, 

unpaginated). 

Development projects, such as 

residential and commercial construction 

and highway and utility construction 

and maintenance, pose a threat to 

smooth coneflower populations by 

clearing areas where the species occurs, 

thereby destroying populations. Further, 

development in close proximity to 

smooth coneflower populations may 

preclude the ability to use fire as a 

management tool at nearby protected 

populations because of the threat of fires 

escaping the management area and 

objections to smoke blowing into 

developed areas. For example, a smooth 

coneflower population on a small parcel 

of USFS land in Habersham County, 

GA, has declined over recent years due 

the difficulty in managing fire on a 

parcel surrounded by private property. 

The lack of management has resulted in 

the growth of woody plants that have 

shaded the smooth coneflower plants 

and resulted in this population’s decline 

(Radcliffe 2019, pers. comm.). As 

residential and commercial 

development continue to occur in the 

suburbs of Durham, NC, it will become 

harder to manage some of the adjacent 

smooth coneflower sites with fire 

(Starke 2019, pers. comm.). 

While we are not aware of any smooth 

coneflower populations that have been 

destroyed due to residential or 

commercial development since the 

species was listed, this threat remains a 

concern. Recently, a new subpopulation 

of smooth coneflower was discovered 

on a property in Durham County, NC, 

that is slated for development. If a rare 

plant survey had not been conducted 

and these plants discovered, they would 

have been destroyed by the 

development of the site (Starke 2019, 

pers. comm.). There are likely 

additional undiscovered populations of 

smooth coneflower that are subject to 

destruction. 

Development pressure based on 

urbanization predictions from the 

SLEUTH urban growth model indicate 

that all of the NC counties, more than 

half of the SC counties, and both of the 

northeastern GA counties of occurrence 

for smooth coneflower will exhibit high 

(greater than 90 percent) growth trends 

over the next 20 to 30 years as part of 

the southern megalopolis (Terando et 

al., 2014, p. 3; Databasin 2014, entire). 

Smooth coneflower populations that 

occur on private lands in these counties 

will continue to face threats from 

development and land conversion in the 

foreseeable future. Most of the VA 

counties of occurrence are outside the 

boundaries of the southern megalopolis 

and the VA urban crescent in the 

eastern part of the State (Databasin 

2014, entire). 

Smooth coneflower occurs on 

roadsides and utility ROWs throughout 

the range of the species. These 

populations are vulnerable to 

management practices that could 

negatively impact or destroy them. 

Herbicides, which are typically harmful 

to all plants, are often used to manage 

vegetation along road shoulders and in 

utility ROWs. Herbicide damage can be 

temporary or permanent depending on 

the herbicide used and the rate of 

application. Although dormant season 

(winter) mowing is generally not 

problematic for disturbance-dependent 

species, as it helps reduce competition 

and maintain sites in an open condition, 

any mowing that occurs during the 

growing season but before plants 

produce mature seeds is considered 

harmful because it arrests seed 

development and reproductive potential 

for that year. Smooth coneflower plants 

growing on a utility ROW in Granville 

County, NC, were accidentally sprayed 

with herbicides, killing many plants in 

this population (NCNHP 2019, 

unpaginated). Herbicide damage to 

smooth coneflowers has also occurred at 

the Savannah River Site in GA, but the 

population was able to recover (White 

2018, Appendix 3, entire). Roadside and 

utility ROW occurrences are difficult to 

manage in an early successional state 

without harming the smooth coneflower 

plants. For example, woody species 

encroachment has caused the decline of 

some smooth coneflower sites that occur 

in ROWs in Durham County, NC. In 

some cases, it is possible to manage 

lands adjacent to ROW populations by, 

for example, removing woody species to 

create suitable habitat for the species, 

encouraging the plant to gradually 

occupy habitat away from the ROW; 

however, adjacent, protected land does 

not always exist (Stark 2019, pers. 

comm.). In the status survey of smooth 

coneflower populations in SC, White 

(2019, Appendix 3, entire) indicates that 

many populations still face competition 

by woody species, the presence of 

invasive species, and road ROW 

maintenance. 

The protection of some smooth 

coneflower populations has been 

accomplished through active 

management and reducing the impacts 

of development. These efforts are 

critical to the long-term survival of this 

species. Recognizing the importance of 

long-term management of smooth 

coneflower populations, management 

plans that incorporate the use of 

prescribed fire and/or mechanized 

vegetation control have been prepared 

for several populations. The Service is 

working with many landowners that 

have smooth coneflower populations to 

complete or update management plans 

for their populations, as most 

management plans were first developed 

in the 1990s and early 2000s and need 

to incorporate new fire management and 

invasive species management practices. 

In 2018, we provided land managers 

with a management plan outline to 

facilitate the completion of thorough 

management plans. Due to greater 

awareness of the important role of fire 

in natural systems, prescribed fire and 

mechanical thinning are now regularly 

used as management tools on National 

Forests, military bases, nature preserves, 

and other protected lands where smooth 

coneflower occurs. Land managers such 

as the USFS, DOD, USACE, and 

Savannah River Site, among others, use 

prescribed fire on a 2- to 4-year interval 

as a management tool to control woody 

vegetation that might otherwise shade 

this disturbance-dependent species. For 

sites that are not managed intentionally 

for smooth coneflower, management 

practices will likely continue even if the 

species is not listed under the Act, 

primarily because the active 

management benefits the overall habitat 

and meets the management objectives of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33169 

the landowner. In general, the 

management benefits the smooth 

coneflower, and without it, the habitat 

conditions for the smooth coneflower 

would likely degrade and we would 

need to reassess the status of the species 

under the Act. For the most part, 

management plans for many of the 

protected populations of smooth 

coneflower have been in place for 

several years, but we do not know if 

management actions would change for 

these populations if the species were 

not listed. 

While development pressure on 

smooth coneflower populations on 

private lands remains, the threat of 

development for the most resilient 

populations is reduced, as they occur 

only on protected lands. As discussed 

earlier, many smooth coneflower 

populations occur on Federal lands, 

such as those owned or managed by the 

USFS (George Washington and Jefferson 

National Forests in VA, Sumter National 

Forest in SC, and ChattahoocheeOconee National Forest in GA), USACE 

(Falls Lake), DOD (Fort Stewart and Fort 

Jackson Army Bases), and USDOE 

(Savannah River Site). These 

populations are protected on Federal 

lands from the threats of ecological 

succession or destruction due to 

development, primarily because Federal 

partners are vested in the protection of 

the species under their management 

plans. Some smooth coneflower sites 

occur on active military bases with 

limited public access, such as Fort 

Jackson and Fort Stewart Army Bases, 

providing further protection of these 

populations. Likewise, the Savannah 

River Site, a former nuclear weapons 

facility, is closed to the public, and no 

development or construction is allowed 

in the areas where smooth coneflower 

occurs. This USDOE site, designated as 

a National Environmental Research 

Park, is managed by the USFS. Several 

other populations are permanently 

protected on non-Federal lands by the 

VADNH, NCDACS, NCPCP, TNC, and 

Mecklenburg County (NC) Parks and 

Recreation Department. 

In response to impacts to populations 

of smooth coneflower in roadside and 

utility ROWs, State departments of 

transportation and utility companies, 

such as Duke Energy and Georgia 

Power, now have management 

agreements or MOUs with State Natural 

Heritage Programs, the USFS, and other 

landowners to protect and manage 

smooth coneflower populations on their 

ROWs in a way that is protective of the 

species. 

While significant progress has been 

made to address the protection and 

management of many smooth 

coneflower populations, development 

pressure and management challenges 

associated with adjacent development 

continue to pose a threat to unprotected 

smooth coneflower populations. 

Populations that occur on private lands 

face threats from development and land 

conversion. Additionally, protected 

populations adjacent to private land can 

be difficult to manage with prescribed 

fire due to concerns of neighbors. 

Without proper management, woody 

vegetation could grow up and shade a 

smooth coneflower population to the 

point of causing decline or eradication 

in less than 10 years. Long-term 

management is still of concern to the 

Service, as several populations are not 

specifically considered in management 

plans nor have commitments to be 

managed into the future. Maintenance 

activities pose a threat to smooth 

coneflower populations that occur on 

roadside and utility ROWs. Despite 

agreements with State and Federal 

agencies to conduct ROW maintenance 

in a way that is protective of rare plants, 

accidents happen frequently. These sites 

are mowed or sprayed with herbicide on 

an irregular basis with varying levels of 

impacts. 

Collection 

When we listed smooth coneflower as 

an endangered species (57 FR 46340; 

October 8, 1992), there was concern that 

populations might be decimated by 

collectors interested in exploiting this 

species for the horticulture and 

pharmaceutical trades. We expected that 

publicity might generate increased 

demand for this species in the nursery 

trade. However, the final listing rule 

also mentioned that smooth coneflower, 

‘‘although offered for sale by a few 

native plant nurseries, is not currently 

a significant component of the 

commercial trade in native plants’’ (57 

FR 46340, October 8, 1992, p. 46341). 

Currently, we are not aware of any plant 

nurseries that offer this species for sale, 

likely a result of the prohibitions on 

collecting endangered plants such as the 

smooth coneflower. The only incidents 

of poaching known to the Service 

occurred at one site in GA. Flowers 

were broken off smooth coneflower 

plants at one of the roadside sites on 

Currahee Mountain, GA (Alley 2018, 

pers. comm.). While there is potential 

that specialty nurseries would be 

interested in selling this species in the 

future, the Service concludes that the 

demand for wild-collected plants is low, 

as other species in the genus Echinacea 

can be readily propagated using 

common horticultural techniques. 

The concern in the final rule (57 FR 

46340; October 8, 1992) that this species 

would be collected for the 

pharmaceutical trade was based on 

observations of over-collection of other 

species of Echinacea in the midwestern 

United States for use in medicinal 

products. However, the rule also stated 

that ‘‘devastation’’ of smooth coneflower 

populations ‘‘for the commercial 

pharmaceutical trade has not yet been 

documented’’ (57 FR 46340, October 8, 

1992, p. 46342). Despite the concerns, in 

the 27 years that smooth coneflower has 

been listed, the Service has not been 

aware of any incidents of poaching this 

species for use in medicinal products. 

Since plants in the genus Echinacea are 

still used for medicinal purposes, the 

threat of this activity remains, but the 

probability is low due to relatively small 

population sizes compared to other 

species in the genus Echinacea that 

grow in midwestern States. Moreover, 

land managers have not reported 

poaching as a significant threat to their 

smooth coneflower populations because 

other species of Echinacea are so much 

more numerous. 

Various types of academic research 

have been conducted on smooth 

coneflower since the species was listed 

in 1992. These studies involved the 

collection of leaves, stems, flowers, and 

seeds for laboratory experiments or the 

collection of voucher specimens for 

herbaria. The NCBG, State Botanical 

Garden of Georgia, and Atlanta 

Botanical Garden have collected smooth 

coneflower seeds over the years to be 

used in restoration projects in their 

respective States. These botanical 

gardens follow the Center for Plant 

Conservation guidelines for seed 

collection and minimize impacts to 

populations, a protocol that is followed 

for all species, regardless of whether the 

species is federally listed or not (Kunz 

2018, pers. comm.). We evaluated these 

projects before they were initiated and 

determined that the level of collection 

was unlikely to pose any potential 

threat of overutilization for the species. 

We do not find that any of these 

research or seed banking projects have 

had long-term negative effects on 

smooth coneflower. If the species were 

not listed, we do not anticipate a 

significant increase in collection 

pressure, given current lack of poaching 

and low interest in the species. 

We conclude that collection is no 

longer a threat to the continued 

existence of smooth coneflower. 

Damage Due to Herbivory by Beetles 

and Deer 

When we listed smooth coneflower as 

an endangered species (57 FR 46340; 

October 8, 1992), leaf beetles in the 

family Chrysomelidae had been 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33170 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

observed on smooth coneflower in NC, 

but their effects were unknown. As 

mentioned in the 2011 5-year review, a 

nonnative longhorn beetle (Hemierana 

marginata; family Cerambycidae) was 

identified at some smooth coneflower 

populations in NC. This beetle chews 

into the flowering stem and causes 

flowers to die before producing viable 

seeds. While this longhorn beetle has 

been reported from a few smooth 

coneflower populations in two NC 

counties, healthy smooth coneflower 

populations remain at these sites. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

nonnative longhorn beetle is not a threat 

at this time. 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus) have been documented 

browsing on the flower heads of smooth 

coneflower, but deer herbivory on the 

leaves has not been observed (Starke 

2019, pers. comm.). No other herbivory 

has been observed. Based on the best 

available information at this time, we 

conclude that neither deer browsing nor 

any other herbivory is causing 

population-level effects to the smooth 

coneflower. 

State Regulatory Protections 

Smooth coneflower is listed as ‘‘State 

Endangered’’ by the GADNR. The 

relevant State law (Rules and 

Regulations of the State of Georgia, 

Subject 391–4–10, Protection of 

Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or 

Unusual Species) prohibits, among 

other things, the transfer of a State-listed 

plant from one property to another 

without the written permission of the 

landowner where the species was 

found. Violations of this law constitute 

a misdemeanor. In addition, the GA 

Environmental Policy Act requires the 

assessment of major proposed agency 

impacts on biological resources (2019 

GA Code 12–16–1 et seq.). Georgia’s 

Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973 

protects rare plants (2019 GA Code 12– 

6–170 et seq.). However, the GA 

Wildflower Preservation Act does not 

protect plants on private property. 

Nearly all known smooth coneflower 

populations in GA occur on Federal 

lands such as the ChattahoocheeOconee National Forest and DOD 

(Department of the Army) installations 

such as Fort Stewart (Moffett 2019, pers. 

comm.). As discussed above (see 

Habitat Degradation or Loss due to 

Development and Absence of Natural 

Disturbance), Federal lands provide 

some protection to smooth coneflower 

populations by limiting public access 

and reducing the threat of development, 

as well as ensuring agency-specific 

management plans. 

Smooth coneflower is listed as 

‘‘endangered’’ in NC by the NCPCP and 

protected by the Plant Protection and 

Conservation Act of 1979 (NC General 

Statutes, Article 19B, section 106– 

202.12 et seq.). This law prevents the 

removal of State-listed plants from the 

land without written permission of the 

landowner. However, it does not 

regulate destruction or mandate 

protection. It authorizes the NCPCP to 

establish nature preserves for protected 

species and their habitats. To that end, 

the NCPCP owns and manages several 

tracts of land as preserves for the 

protection of smooth coneflower and 

other associated rare plants. 

The Virginia Endangered Plant and 

Insect Species Act (section 3.2–1000 et 

seq. of the Code of Virginia), as 

amended, provides for the official 

listing and recovery of endangered and 

threatened plant and insect species in 

VA. The VADNH lists smooth 

coneflower as ‘‘threatened’’ in the State 

(Title 2 of the VA Administrative Code 

at section 5–320–10 (2VAC5–320–10); 

Townsend 2018, p. 16). Virginia law 

prohibits the removal and sale or gifting 

of State-listed plant species from land 

other than a person’s own land. The 

VADCR owns three natural area 

preserves that protect populations of 

smooth coneflower. 

The Virginia Endangered Plant and 

Insect Species Act has not played a 

major role in safeguarding smooth 

coneflower populations (Townsend 

2019, pers. comm.). 

Smooth coneflower is on the SCDNR’s 

list of rare, threatened, and endangered 

species of SC (SCHTP 2018, 

unpaginated); however, neither the law 

that authorizes the creation of this list, 

nor any other State law, provides 

general protection to listed plants in SC. 

Populations of smooth coneflower are 

more abundant and widely distributed 

than when it was listed as an 

endangered species in 1992. It is also 

listed as endangered or threatened by 

three of the four States where it occurs 

(GA, NC, and VA). However, protection 

of this and other State-listed species on 

private land is challenging. State 

prohibitions against taking are difficult 

to enforce and do not cover adverse 

alterations of habitats such as exclusion 

of fire. As previously mentioned in this 

proposed rule, the majority of the 

highest ranked populations (Ranks A, 

AB, and B) occur on protected Federal 

lands and other conservation properties. 

Genetics 

The final rule listing smooth 

coneflower as an endangered species (57 

FR 46340; October 8, 1992) stated that, 

at that time, the remaining smooth 

coneflower populations contained few 

individual plants and there may have 

been low genetic variability within 

populations, making each remaining 

population important. However, as 

discussed above under Population 

Structure, we now know that smooth 

coneflower displays a relatively high 

level of diversity (Peters et al. 2009, 

entire). Thus, populations may be able 

to respond to selection pressures due to 

continued genetic exchange sustained 

by the outcrossing mating system of the 

species. 

Encroachment From Invasive Species 

Encroachment by nonnative, invasive 

plants poses a threat to some smooth 

coneflower populations, especially 

those occurrences located on highway 

ROWs or in utility line easements (such 

as power lines). These disturbed 

habitats often include nonnative 

species, some of which can become 

invasive. Invasive species change the 

floristic composition of these areas, 

compete for nutrients, limit germination 

of seeds (by changing or eliminating that 

niche/microenvironment), and may 

shade out smooth coneflower plants 

(Kunz 2020, pers. comm.). Another 

impact is the use of herbicides on 

invasive species that has the secondary 

effect of killing smooth coneflower. 

Smooth coneflower populations face 

threats by nonnative, invasive plants 

such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 

japonica), Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza 

cuneata), shrubby lespedeza (Lespedeza 

bicolor), Japanese stiltgrass 

(Microstegium vimineum), and autumn 

olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) (White 

2019, entire). 

Climate Change 

Based on observations of climatic 

conditions over a period of 

approximately 20 years, there is some 

biological and historical evidence to 

suggest that smooth coneflower is 

adapted to persist with the potential 

effects of climate change, including 

more frequent droughts and increased 

average maximum temperatures. 

Smooth coneflower is typically found in 

open, sunny areas with little to no shade 

and high sun exposure. These sites often 

occur in fairly xeric conditions such as 

open woods, glades, barrens, roadsides, 

clear cuts, dry limestone bluffs, and 

road and power line ROWs. Even 

though smooth coneflower populations 

in NC experienced severe droughts in 

2007 and 2010, dry conditions did not 

negatively influence flower production 

(NCPCP 2018, entire). All natural 

populations in NC have survived 

through drought years and recovered. 

Despite some drought years, smooth 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33171 

coneflower populations in SC have 

generally experienced positive trends 

over the last 20 years, indicating that the 

species is not negatively affected by 

droughts (White 2018, entire). Smooth 

coneflower plants have sustained 

populations for years on dry clay road 

cuts (White 2019, pers. comm.). 

Adaptations to survive in sunny areas 

likely benefit this species during 

drought conditions. Further, the 

perennial growth habitat and 

underground rhizomes likely allow 

smooth coneflower to be more resilient 

to drought conditions. 

To generate future climate projections 

across the range of smooth coneflower, 

we used the National Climate Change 

Viewer (NCCV), a tool developed by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that 

allows the user to view climate 

projections at the State, county, and 

watershed level (Alder and Hostetler 

2017, entire;). The model simulates the 

response of the water balance to changes 

in temperature and precipitation in the 

climate models (30 separate models 

developed by the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration). The NCCV 

also provides access to comprehensive 

summary reports for States, counties, 

and watersheds. 

Using the NCCV and using 

Representative Concentration Pathways 

(RCP) greenhouse gas emission 

scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5) as possible 

outcomes, we calculated projected 

annual mean changes for maximum air 

temperature and precipitation for the 

period 2050–2074 in VA, NC, SC, and 

GA. Based on these results, all four 

States within the range of smooth 

coneflower will be subjected to higher 

maximum air temperatures (annual 

mean increase of 1.9–2.2 degrees Celsius 

(°C) (3.4–4.0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) for 

RCP 4.5; 2.7–3.2 °C (4.9–5.8 °F) for RCP 

8.5) and slightly higher precipitation 

(annual mean increase of 0.57–0.74 

centimeters (cm)/month (mo) (0.22–0.3 

inches (in)/mo) for RCP 4.5; 0.51–0.76 

cm/mo (0.2–0.3 in/mo) for RCP 8.5) 

relative to 1981–2010 (Alder and 

Hostetler 2017, entire). In general, 

across the species’ range for both RCP 

4.5 and 8.5, runoff is expected to remain 

at a similar levels or decrease slightly; 

soil water storage is expected to 

decrease slightly, and evaporative 

deficit will increase slightly (Alder and 

Hostetler 2017, entire). Because the 

average annual increase in precipitation 

is predicted to be only slightly higher, 

the increased evaporative deficit and the 

loss in runoff and soil storage is 

primarily a result of higher maximum 

and minimum air temperatures. Despite 

the slight increase in predicted 

precipitation, the coincident warming 

means that habitats are unlikely to 

maintain their current levels of moisture 

and will become slightly drier. 

To evaluate the vulnerability of 

smooth coneflower to the effects of 

climate change, we also used 

NatureServe’s Climate Change 

Vulnerability Index (CCVI) (Young et al. 

2015, entire), a climate change model 

that uses downscaled climate 

predictions from tools such as Climate 

Wizard (Girvetz et al. 2009, entire) and 

combines these with readily available 

information about a species’ natural 

history, distribution, and landscape 

circumstances to predict whether it will 

likely suffer a range contraction and/or 

population reductions due to the effects 

of climate change. The tool gauges 20 

scientifically documented factors and 

indicators of these components, as well 

as documented responses to climate 

change where they exist. The CCVI 

generated a vulnerability rating of 

‘‘moderately vulnerable’’ for smooth 

coneflower, suggesting that the species’ 

abundance and/or range extent is likely 

to decrease by 2050. Factors influencing 

the species’ moderate vulnerability 

include its restricted dispersal ability, 

anthropogenic barriers, predicted land 

use changes, dependence on a specific 

disturbance regime (often fire), and 

restriction to uncommon geological 

features. 

Although the model suggested that 

smooth coneflower is sensitive to 

climate change and could be adversely 

affected in future years, there are a 

number of weaknesses associated with 

the CCVI (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, 

pp. 16–17). The specific weaknesses 

identified are: (1) The CCVI is weighted 

too heavily towards direct exposure to 

climate change (projected changes to 

future temperature and precipitation 

conditions that have high levels of 

uncertainties); (2) some important plant 

attributes are missing (mating system 

and pollinator specificity); (3) it is very 

difficult to complete scoring for a given 

species because some information is 

simply lacking; and (4) some scoring 

guidelines are too simplistic (Anacker 

and Leidholm 2012, pp. 16–17). 

Anacker and Leidholm (2012, pp. 12– 

16) considered topographic complexity 

to be a potential complementary factor 

in assessing vulnerability to climate 

change. Within smooth coneflower’s 

range, the Appalachian and Allegheny 

mountains have been predicted to have 

slightly higher temperature changes as a 

result of climate change than the 

piedmont and coastal plain counties, so 

smooth coneflower populations in the 

mountains on the north end of the range 

may be more vulnerable when 

compared to those that occur, for 

example, in the coastal plain. 

In summary, while smooth 

coneflower is considered moderately 

vulnerable to range contraction from 

future climate change, the predicted 

temperature and precipitation changes 

for both moderate (RCP 4.5) and extreme 

(RCP 8.5) scenarios indicate only 

slightly hotter and drier conditions by 

2074. Therefore, climate change is not 

likely a major factor affecting the 

species’ resiliency into the foreseeable 

future. 

Stochastic Events 

Stochastic events (environmental and 

genetic stochasticity) could affect 

populations of smooth coneflower. 

Environmental stochasticity refers to 

variation in recruitment and mortality 

rates in response to weather, disease, 

competition, predation, or other factors 

external to the population. While 

drought (below average rainfall over a 

time period greater than the historical 

range of variability) and the timing and 

amount of rainfall are likely important 

factors in seed germination and 

establishment of smooth coneflower, we 

do not have any evidence of how these 

factors directly affect this species. 

Smooth coneflower soil seed banks are 

low to nonexistent, which could 

exacerbate the potential effects of 

stochastic events because the species 

does not have the seed bank to rely on 

for future recruitment (Walker 2009, p. 

12); however, we have not yet observed 

that the low seedbank has affected 

resilient populations. With regard to 

genetic stochasticity, smooth coneflower 

populations have significant levels of 

population diversity and exhibit 

substantial population genetic 

differentiation (Peters et al. 2009, p. 12) 

(see Genetics, above). We cannot 

conclude that either environmental or 

genetic stochasticity poses a threat to 

the smooth coneflower. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of encroaching 

development adjacent to protected sites 

could affect the smooth coneflower, and 

the management challenges that 

accompany that threat will continue to 

affect the species into the future. 

Increasing development adjacent to 

protected sites will likely lead to 

decreases in managing with prescribed 

burning in the future, which may or 

may not be replaced with adequate and 

appropriate habitat management by 

other means that are more expensive 

than managing with fire. The type of 

development also factors into 

management ability and flexibility, with 

major roads and places with vulnerable 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33172 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

populations weighing more heavily on 

the decision of if/when to burn than 

other types of development. 

Determination of Smooth Coneflower’s 

Status 

As discussed above in Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species, section 4 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) defines 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether a species meets the definition 

of endangered species or threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Foreseeable Future 

As also described above, the term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. Data that are 

typically relevant to assessing the 

species’ biological response include 

species-specific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

We considered a foreseeable future of 

20–30 years as the period of time over 

which we are able to reliably predict the 

magnitude of threats, including a 

changing climate, and the effects on 

smooth coneflower. Threats that are 

reasonably likely to affect the species in 

the foreseeable future include habitat 

loss due to development pressure on 

private lands and habitat succession due 

to lack of adequate management, 

including fire suppression near or on 

private lands and accidental mowing 

and herbicide application from roadside 

maintenance activities. Thus, all 

populations of smooth coneflower that 

are not actively managed or formally 

protected remain at risk of extirpation in 

the future. A 20–30 year timeframe is 

the expected period over which 

implementation of management 

practices (such as prescribed fire) by 

conservation partners and tracking of 

the species’ response to managed habitat 

improvement is reliable. For formally 

protected populations, we expect 

management of the threat of fire 

suppression to continue as part of 

ongoing management well into the 

future. However, uncertainty regarding 

effects of a changing climate increases 

after 20–30 years, making reliable 

predictions after this time period 

difficult. Therefore, we used the 20–30 

year timeframe in developing our 

projections of future conditions for 

smooth coneflower. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we find that smooth coneflower 

continues to face threats from habitat 

succession (resulting from lack of fire or 

other management), particularly in areas 

where development is increasing near 

existing populations, thus making fire 

management difficult. In addition, 

development pressure, especially for 

unprotected populations on private 

lands, remains a concern. We are 

concerned about long-term management 

because several populations do not have 

management plans or the management 

plans no longer reflect the best available 

science. Even populations occurring on 

protected land adjacent to private lands 

are becoming increasingly more difficult 

to manage due to neighbors’ concerns 

about nearby fires and smoke pollution. 

Even with agreements in place to 

protect them, roadside and utility ROW 

populations still face threats from 

maintenance activities, especially 

herbicide spraying and mowing. The 

decline or disappearance of some 

smooth coneflower populations across 

the range of the species has been 

documented in Natural Heritage 

Program records and is attributed to 

habitat loss. Habitat loss (Factor A) is 

considered to be a moderate threat 

currently and is expected to continue in 

the foreseeable future. 

At the time of listing in 1992, there 

was concern that smooth coneflower 

plants would be collected for the 

horticulture or pharmaceutical trade 

(Factor B). However, we do not find that 

collecting is currently a threat to this 

species or is expected to be in the 

foreseeable future. 

Disease and predation (Factor C) were 

not identified as a significant threat to 

smooth coneflower when the species 

was listed in 1992. Natural herbivory by 

insects and mammals may occur, but it 

is a considered a low-magnitude threat 

because the species has sustained 

populations and there is no indication 

that the magnitude of an undetermined 

natural predation pressure significantly 

affects smooth coneflower survival. We 

find that disease and predation are not 

currently threats to this species, and we 

do not expect them to be threats in the 

foreseeable future. 

The existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) are not adequate to protect 

the smooth coneflower from 

development and habitat succession. 

Populations of smooth coneflower on 

USFS, DOD, and USDOE lands receive 

some protection by management 

protocols applicable to those lands. 

Some populations in NC, SC, and VA 

occur on State-owned lands managed by 

their respective Natural Heritage 

Programs or the NCDACS as ‘‘dedicated 

nature preserves.’’ However, while NC, 

GA, and VA have plant protection laws, 

they only regulate the collection and 

trade of listed species and do not 

prohibit the destruction of populations 

on private lands or otherwise mandate 

protection. There is no State law 

protecting rare plants in SC. 

Other natural and manmade factors 

affecting the continued existence (Factor 

E) of smooth coneflower identified at 

the time of listing (1992) include low 

genetic variability within populations, 

encroachment by exotic species, 

herbicide use, and the importance of 

periodic disturbance (addressed above 

under Factor A). Of these threats, 

encroachment by exotic (invasive) 

species, and use of herbicides to manage 

those exotic species, continue to be a 

threat to smooth coneflower 

populations. Since listing, climate 

change is another factor that has been 

identified. However, genetic studies, 

described in detail above under 

Population Structure, indicate that 

smooth coneflower displays a relatively 

high level of diversity and that 

populations may be able to respond to 

selection pressures and maintain 

viability due to continued genetic 

exchange sustained by the outcrossing 

mating system of the species. Based on 

the redundancy and representation of 

the species, we conclude that potential 

impacts associated with stochastic 

events are not a threat to smooth 

coneflower. Despite our uncertainty 

about the species’ vulnerability to 

climate change, we do not consider 

climate change to be a threat to smooth 

coneflower based on the current 

resiliency of the species and its 

demonstrated tolerance to periods of 

drought. 

Further, since the species’ 1992 listing 

under the Act, smooth coneflower 

representation has increased with the 

discovery of new occurrences 

throughout the range of the species, 

especially with the new sites in the 

coastal plain of GA and SC. Our 

understanding of the species’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33173 

redundancy has improved as a result of 

increased survey efforts; the species is 

now known from 44 populations (up 

from 21 populations at the time of 

listing), 16 of which currently have high 

to medium resiliency. The number of 

resilient smooth coneflower populations 

has improved the species’ redundancy. 

The species’ representation is good, 

given the distribution of resilient 

populations over a four-State area. We 

believe that this improvement in the 

species’ viability demonstrates that it is 

not currently in danger of extinction 

despite the persistence of the abovedescribed threats. 

In conclusion, based on our 

assessment of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that while smooth coneflower 

populations continue to face threats 

from habitat loss and invasive species, 

and existing regulatory mechanisms are 

currently inadequate to protect some 

smooth coneflower populations from 

development and habitat succession; 

however, there are currently 16 

protected, resilient smooth coneflower 

populations. Therefore, the species no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species, meaning it is not 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout its range. 

We, therefore, proceed with 

determining whether smooth 

coneflower meets the Act’s definition of 

a threatened species. The ongoing 

threats of habitat loss, fragmentation, 

habitat succession, and encroachment of 

nonnative and invasive species are of 

sufficient imminence, scope, or 

magnitude to affect the resiliency of 

smooth coneflower populations for the 

foreseeable future. The species relies on 

management such as prescribed fire and 

mechanical clearing to maintain its 

habitat. However, management plans for 

most of the areas in which the species 

is protected are outdated, and it is 

uncertain how those plans are even 

being implemented. Threatened 

development near protected sites could 

impede management of those sites with 

fire. Adequate management 

commitments would need to be secured 

for more populations before the species 

could be delisted. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that although smooth 

coneflower is not currently in danger of 

extinction, it is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) 

(Center for Biological Diversity), vacated 

the aspect of our Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

that provided that the Service and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service do 

not undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, 

we proceed to evaluating whether the 

species is endangered in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which both (1) the portion is 

significant; and (2) the species is in 

danger of extinction in that portion. 

Depending on the rule, it might be 

more efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. Regardless of which 

question we address first, if we reach a 

negative answer with respect to the first 

question, we do not need to evaluate the 

other question for that portion of the 

species’ range. 

In undertaking this analysis for the 

smooth coneflower, we choose to 

address the status question first—we 

consider information pertaining to the 

geographic distribution of both the 

species and the threats that the species 

faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the species is endangered. 

For smooth coneflower, we 

considered whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. We 

examined the following threats: Habitat 

succession, habitat loss, and invasive 

species, as well as the cumulative 

effects of these threats. Smooth 

coneflower populations on private lands 

face the threat of development. The 

decline or disappearance of some 

smooth coneflower populations across 

the range of the species has been 

documented in Natural Heritage 

Program records and is attributed to 

habitat loss. Further, encroachment by 

invasive species, which is most 

prevalent in disturbed areas, such as 

highway ROWs or utility corridors, 

occurs throughout the smooth 

coneflower’s range. We found no 

concentration of threats in any portion 

of the smooth coneflower’s range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. Thus, 

there are no portions of the species’ 

range where the species has a different 

status from its rangewide status. 

Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to 

determine whether any portion of the 

species’ range is significant. This is 

consistent with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. Department of the 

Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 

WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), 

and Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. 

Ariz. 2017). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the smooth coneflower 

meets the Act’s definition of a 

threatened species. Therefore, we 

propose to reclassify the smooth 

coneflower from an endangered species 

to a threatened species in accordance 

with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the 

Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

The Act encourages cooperation with 

the States and requires that recovery 

actions be implemented for all listed 

species. The protections required by 

Federal agencies and the prohibitions 

against certain activities are discussed, 

in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act requires the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystem. 

Revisions of the plan may be done to 

address continuing or new threats to the 

species, as new substantive information 

becomes available. The recovery plan 

identifies site-specific management 

actions that set a trigger for review of 

the five factors that control whether a 

species may be downlisted or delisted, 

and methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33174 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. All planning documents 

can be found on our website (http://

www.fws.gov/endangered) or from our 

Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, propagation 

and reintroduction, and outreach and 

education. The recovery of many listed 

species cannot be accomplished solely 

on Federal lands because their range 

may occur primarily or solely on nonFederal lands (like TNC preserves and 

county owned nature preserves). To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands 

where appropriate. Funding for recovery 

actions could become available from a 

variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost share 

grants from non-Federal landowners, 

the academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. We 

invite you to submit any new 

information on this species whenever it 

becomes available (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) requires Federal agencies 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is listed as an 

endangered or threatened species. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with the Service. 

Proposed Rule Under Section 4(d) of 

the Act 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as he deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of species listed as 

threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

noted that statutory language like 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates 

a large degree of deference to the agency 

(see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 

(1988)). Conservation is defined in the 

Act to mean the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary. Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1) of the Act, in the 

case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2) 

of the Act, in the case of plants. Thus, 

the combination of the two sentences of 

section 4(d) provides the Secretary with 

wide latitude of discretion to select and 

promulgate appropriate regulations 

tailored to the specific conservation 

needs of the threatened species. The 

second sentence grants particularly 

broad discretion to the Service when 

adopting the prohibitions under section 

9 of the Act. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld rules developed under section 

4(d) as a valid exercise of agency 

authority where they prohibited take of 

threatened wildlife or include a limited 

taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); 

Washington Environmental Council v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 

U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 

2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) 

rules that do not address all of the 

threats a species faces (see State of 

Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th 

Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 

history when the Act was initially 

enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the 

threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to him with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. He 

may, for example, permit taking, but not 

importation of such species, or he may 

choose to forbid both taking and 

importation but allow the transportation 

of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 

93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). 

Exercising this authority under 

section 4(d), we have developed a 

proposed rule that is designed to 

address smooth coneflower’s specific 

threats and conservation needs. 

Although the statute does not require 

the Service to make a ‘‘necessary and 

advisable’’ finding with respect to the 

adoption of specific prohibitions under 

section 9, we find that this rule as a 

whole satisfies the requirement in 

section 4(d) of the Act to issue 

regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the smooth coneflower. 

As discussed above under Summary 

of Factors Affecting the Species, we 

have concluded that the smooth 

coneflower is likely to become in danger 

of extinction within the foreseeable 

future primarily due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

(specifically due to fire suppression and 

subsequent ecological succession and 

development, and encroachment from 

invasive species). 

Specifically, a number of activities 

have the potential to affect the smooth 

coneflower, including land clearing for 

development, fire suppression, and 

herbicide application to highway and 

utility ROWs. Regulating these 

activities, including prohibiting those 

activities related to removing, damaging, 

or destroying smooth coneflowers, 

would provide for conservation of the 

species by helping to preserve 

remaining populations, slowing their 

rate of potential decline, and decreasing 

synergistic, negative effects from other 

stressors. Prohibiting import and export, 

transportation, and commerce of smooth 

coneflower limits unauthorized 

propagation and distribution, which 

prevents potential hybridization with 

other species of Echinacea and 

subsequent inbreeding depression. As a 

whole, the proposed 4(d) rule would 

help in the efforts to recover the species. 

The provisions of this proposed 4(d) 

rule would promote conservation of 

smooth coneflower by encouraging 

management of the landscape in ways 

that meet both land management 

considerations and the conservation 

needs of the smooth coneflower, 

specifically by providing exceptions for 

incidental take for State agency 

conservation actions, scientific permits 

for research, and use of cultivated-origin 

seeds for education. The provisions of 

this proposed rule are one of many tools 

that we would use to promote the 

conservation of the smooth coneflower. 

This proposed 4(d) rule would apply 

only if and when we make final the 

reclassification of the smooth 

coneflower as a threatened species. 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 

This proposed 4(d) rule would 

provide for the conservation of the 

smooth coneflower by prohibiting the 

following activities, except as otherwise 

authorized or permitted: Importing or 

exporting; certain acts related to 

removing, damaging, and destroying; 

delivering, receiving, carrying, 

transporting, or shipping in interstate or 

foreign commerce in the course of 

commercial activity; and selling or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33175 

offering for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

involving threatened plants under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened 

plants, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance propagation or 

survival, for economic hardship, for 

botanical or horticultural exhibition, for 

educational purposes, or for other 

purposes consistent with the purposes 

of the Act. Additional statutory 

exemptions from the prohibitions are 

found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship with our State natural 

resource agency partners in contributing 

to conservation of listed species. State 

agencies often possess scientific data 

and valuable expertise on the status and 

distribution of endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species of wildlife and 

plants. State agencies, because of their 

authorities and their close working 

relationships with local governments 

and landowners, are in a unique 

position to assist us in implementing all 

aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 

6 of the Act provides that we shall 

cooperate to the maximum extent 

practicable with the States in carrying 

out programs authorized by the Act. 

Therefore, as set forth at 50 CFR 

17.71(b) and proposed as an exception 

to the prohibitions in this 4(d) rule, any 

employee or agent of the Service or of 

a State conservation agency that is 

operating a conservation program 

pursuant to the terms of a cooperative 

agreement with the Service in 

accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, 

who is designated by that agency for 

such purposes, would be allowed, when 

acting in the course of official duties, to 

remove and reduce to possession from 

areas under Federal smooth coneflowers 

that are covered by an approved 

cooperative agreement to carry out 

conservation programs. In addition, in 

accordance with 50 CFR 17.61(c)(2) 

through (4), any employee or agent of 

the Service, any other Federal land 

management agency, or a State 

conservation agency, who is designated 

by that agency for such purposes, would 

be able to, when acting in the course of 

official duties, remove and reduce to 

possession endangered plants from 

areas under Federal jurisdiction without 

a permit to care for a damaged or 

diseased specimen, or to salvage or 

dispose of a dead specimen. 

We also recognize the beneficial and 

educational aspects of activities with 

seeds of cultivated plants, which 

generally enhance the propagation of 

the species, and therefore would satisfy 

permit requirements under the Act. We 

intend to monitor the interstate and 

foreign commerce and the import and 

export of these specimens in a manner 

that will not inhibit such activities, 

providing the activities do not represent 

a threat to the survival of the species in 

the wild. In this regard, seeds of 

cultivated specimens would not be 

regulated provided that a statement that 

the seeds are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ 

accompanies the seeds or their 

container (e.g., the seeds could be 

moved across State lines or between 

territories for purposes of seed banking 

or use for outplanting without 

additional regulations). 

Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule 

would change in any way the recovery 

planning provisions of section 4(f) of the 

Act, the consultation requirements 

under section 7 of the Act, or our ability 

to enter into partnerships for the 

management and protection of smooth 

coneflower. However, interagency 

cooperation may be further streamlined 

through planned programmatic 

consultations for the species between us 

and other Federal agencies, where 

appropriate. We ask the public, 

particularly State agencies and other 

interested stakeholders that may be 

affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to 

provide comments and suggestions 

regarding additional guidance and 

methods that we could provide or use, 

respectively, to streamline the 

implementation of this proposed 4(d) 

rule (see Information Requested, above). 

Effects of This Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule, if made final, 

would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to 

reclassify the smooth coneflower from 

endangered to threatened on the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. It would also recognize that this 

plant is no longer in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. This reclassification 

does not significantly change the 

protections afforded to this species 

under the Act. The prohibitions and 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, would continue to apply to the 

smooth coneflower. Federal agencies are 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act in the event 

that activities they authorize, fund, or 

carry out may affect the smooth 

coneflower. 

As applicable, recovery actions 

directed at the smooth coneflower will 

continue to be implemented as outlined 

in the recovery plan for this plant 

(USFWS 1995). Highest priority actions 

(also recommended as future actions in 

our 5-year review (USFWS 2011, pp. 

13–14)) include: (1) Continue to work 

with partners to strengthen management 

plans for protected smooth coneflower 

populations so they will better 

contribute to the recovery of the species; 

(2) continue conducting comprehensive 

surveys for this species within 

traditional and non-traditional sites to 

determine more details on abundance 

and distribution of the species; (3) 

develop stronger monitoring protocols 

and continue long-term monitoring that 

will demonstrate stability of 

populations; (4) promote conservation 

agreements with private landowners to 

protect and enhance existing 

populations; (5) work closely with 

landowners to ensure the protection of 

the species and management of its 

habitat on private lands; (6) develop 

propagation and outplanting protocols 

according to Center for Plant 

Conservation guidelines; and (7) 

continue to conduct research on general 

biology of the species including 

genetics, life history, and reproductive 

biology (breeding systems, seed 

production, and seedling survivorship). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33176 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

need not be prepared in connection 

with determining and implementing a 

species’ listing status under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have determined that there are no Tribal 

interests affected by this proposal. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Raleigh 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team and the Raleigh Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

Signing Authority 

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Martha Williams, Principal Deputy 

Director Exercising the Delegated 

Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, approved this 

document on June 14, 2021, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12, in paragraph (h), by 

revising the entry ‘‘Echinacea laevigata’’ 

under FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Echinacea laevigata .......... Smooth coneflower ........... Wherever found ................ T 57 FR 46340, 10/8/1992; [Federal Register citation of final rule]; 50 CFR 

17.73(f).4d

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Add § 17.73 to read as follows: 

§ 17.73 Special rules—flowering plants. 

(a)–(e) [Reserved]. 

(f) Echinacea laevigata (smooth 

coneflower)—(1) Prohibitions. The 

following prohibitions that apply to 

endangered plants also apply to 

Echinacea laevigata. Except as provided 

under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, it 

is unlawful for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit 

another to commit, or cause to be 

committed, any of the following acts in 

regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.61(b) for endangered plants. 

(ii) Remove and reduce to possession 

from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as 

set forth at § 17.61(c)(1) for endangered 

plants. 

(iii) Maliciously damage or destroy 

the species on any areas under Federal 

jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or 

damage or destroy the species on any 

other area in knowing violation of any 

State law or regulation or in the course 

of any violation of a State criminal 

trespass law, as set forth at section 

9(a)(2)(B) of the Act. 

(iv) Engage in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, as set forth at § 17.61(d) for 

endangered plants. 

(v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 17.61(e) for endangered plants. 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to Echinacea laevigata, you may: 

(i) Conduct activities, including 

activities prohibited under paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section, if they are 

authorized by a permit issued in 

accordance with the provisions set forth 

at § 17.72. 

(ii) Conduct activities authorized by a 

permit issued under § 17.62 prior to the 

effective date of the final rule for the 

duration of the permit. 

(iii) Remove and reduce to possession 

from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as 

set forth at § 17.61(c)(2) through (4) for 

endangered plants and § 17.71(b). 

(iv) Engage in any act prohibited 

under paragraph (f)(1) of this section 

with seeds of cultivated specimens, 

provided that a statement that the seeds 

are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ accompanies 

the seeds or their container. 

Madonna Baucum, 

Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of 

Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12951 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS