40100 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0063; 

FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BD83 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassification of Smooth 

Coneflower From Endangered To 

Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), reclassify 

smooth coneflower (Echinacea 

laevigata) from endangered to 

threatened (‘‘downlist’’) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), due to improvements in 

the species’ overall status since the 

original listing in 1992. This action is 

based on a thorough review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, which indicates that 

smooth coneflower is not currently in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, but it is 

still likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. We are also finalizing 

a rule under section 4(d) of the Act that 

provides for the conservation of smooth 

coneflower. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 5, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Public comments and 

materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0063. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete 

Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological 

Services Field Office, 551–F Pylon 

Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 

(919) 856–4520. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species may warrant 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened if it no longer meets the 

definition of endangered (in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range). Smooth coneflower 

is listed as endangered, and we are 

reclassifying smooth coneflower as 

threatened (i.e., ‘‘downlisting’’ the 

species) because we have determined it 

is not currently in danger of extinction. 

Reclassifying a species under the Act 

can only be accomplished by issuing a 

rule through the Administrative 

Procedure Act rulemaking process. 

What this document does. This rule 

reclassifies smooth coneflower from 

endangered to threatened on the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants (List), with a rule issued under 

section 4(d) of the Act, based on the 

species’ current status, which has been 

improved through implementation of 

conservation actions. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

may reclassify a species if the best 

available commercial and scientific data 

indicate the species no longer meets the 

applicable definition in the Act. We 

have determined that smooth 

coneflower is no longer in danger of 

extinction and, therefore, does not meet 

the Act’s definition of an endangered 

species, but the species does meet the 

Act’s definition of a threatened species 

because there are not enough 

permanently protected or managed 

populations to ameliorate ongoing 

habitat loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation from development. 

Existing management and regulatory 

mechanisms are not sufficient to protect 

the species from these threats such that 

it is not in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future. 

Peer review and public comment. 

During the proposed rule stage, we 

sought the expert opinions of four 

appropriate specialists regarding the 

proposed reclassification rule. We 

received responses from two peer 

reviewers, which informed our 

determination. Information we received 

from peer review is incorporated into 

this final rule. We also considered all 

comments and information we received 

from the public during the comment 

period, but none of these changed our 

determination. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the proposed 

downlisting rule for smooth coneflower 

published on June 24, 2021 (86 FR 

33159), for a detailed description of 

previous Federal actions concerning this 

species. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In preparing this final rule, we 

reviewed and fully considered all 

comments we received during the 

comment period from the peer 

reviewers and the public on the 

proposed rule to reclassify smooth 

coneflower. Minor, nonsubstantive 

changes and corrections are made 

throughout this document in response 

to comments. However, the information 

we received during the peer review and 

public comment period on the proposed 

rule did not change our analysis, 

rationales, or determination for either 

reclassifying the smooth coneflower as a 

threatened species under the Act or the 

4(d) rule for the species. 

I. Final Reclassification Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, ecology, and overall 

viability of smooth coneflower is 

presented in the recovery plan (Service 

1995, entire), the 5-year review (Service 

2011, entire), and the proposed 

downlisting rule (86 FR 33159; June 24, 

2021). Smooth coneflower is a perennial 

herb in the aster family (Asteraceae). It 

was first described as Brauneria 

laevigata by Boynton and Beadle in 

1903, from material collected in South 

Carolina (SC) in 1888. It was transferred 

to the genus Echinacea in 1929 (Small 

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

Smooth coneflower grows up to 1.5 

meters (59 inches (in)) tall from a 

vertical root stock; stems are smooth, 

with few leaves. Flower heads are 

usually solitary and are composed of ray 

flowers and disk flowers. The ray 

flowers (petal-like structures on 

composite flower heads) are light pink 

to purplish, strongly drooping, and 5 to 

8 centimeters (cm; 1.9 to 3.1 in) long. 

Disk flowers (tiny tubular flowers in the 

central portion of composite flower 

head) are about 5 millimeters (mm) (0.2 

in) long. Flowering occurs from May 

through July, and fruits develop from 

late June to September (Gaddy 1991, p. 

18). Sexual reproduction results in a 

gray-brown, oblong-prismatic achene 

(dry, one-seeded fruit). Asexual 

reproduction in the form of short clonal 

rhizomes make new rosettes in both 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40101 

garden and wild settings (Kunz 2018, 

pers. comm.). Smooth coneflower is 

dependent on insect pollinators for 

cross pollination. While skippers, 

butterflies, and wasps are frequent floral 

visitors, bees are believed to be the most 

effective pollinators (Gadd 2006, p. 15; 

Collins and Fore 2009, pp. 452–454). 

In this rule, we follow guidance for 

defining element occurrences (EOs) and 

populations described by NatureServe 

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

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

(or historical) location where smooth 

coneflower occurs (or occurred), 

regardless of the spatial relationship 

with other EOs. We define a population 

as either a stand-alone EO isolated by 

distance of unsuitable habitat (separated 

from other EOs by 2 kilometers (km) (1.2 

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

EO. A principal EO is two or more EOs 

located less than or equal to 2 km (1.2 

mi) from each other, with suitable 

habitat in between them. For the 

purposes of evaluating the recovery of 

this species, it is most appropriate to 

consider populations rather than 

individual EOs. 

At the time of listing in 1992, smooth 

coneflower had 21 extant populations 

(57 FR 46340; October 8, 1992). When 

the recovery plan was written in 1995, 

there were 24 known populations 

rangewide, with an additional 3 

populations in SC that were considered 

of cultivated origin at that time but are 

now believed to be natural populations, 

for a total of 27 populations (Service 

1995, p. 2). New smooth coneflower 

occurrences have been discovered since 

the time of listing. Current State Natural 

Heritage Program database records 

document 44 extant populations of 

smooth coneflower (table 1). 

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

RANGE OF THE SPECIES

[Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) 2019, unpaginated; North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) 2019, unpaginated; 

South Carolina Heritage Trust Program (SCHTP) 2019, unpaginated; Virginia Division of Natural Heritage (VADNH) 2018, unpaginated; 

White 2018, p. 6] 

State 

Number of 

extant 

populations 

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

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

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

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

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

At the time of listing in 1992, all of 

the known smooth coneflower 

populations occurred in the piedmont 

or mountain physiographic provinces of 

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

populations have been found in the 

inner coastal plain/sandhills region of 

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

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

Smooth coneflower is typically found 

in open woods, glades, cedar barrens, 

roadsides, clear cuts, dry limestone 

bluffs, and power line rights-of-way 

(ROWs). The species is usually found on 

magnesium- and calcium-rich soils 

associated with amphibolite, dolomite, 

or limestone (in VA); gabbro (in NC and 

VA); diabase (in NC and SC); marble, 

sandy loams, chert, and amphibolites 

(in SC and GA); and shallow soils with 

minor bedrock exposures (in GA) 

(Service 1995, pp. 2–3; White 2018, p. 

4; GADNR 2019, unpaginated). The 

healthiest smooth coneflower 

populations are managed with 

prescribed fire or mechanical thinning, 

which provides smooth coneflower 

plants abundant sunlight and little 

competition from other plant species 

(Gaddy 1991, p. 1). 

Land managers and biologists have 

routinely monitored smooth coneflower 

populations since before the species was 

listed in 1992. Monitoring at most 

populations usually involves a 

flowering stem count, while each rosette 

of leaves is counted at some sites. 

Flowering stem counts are generally the 

most common survey method because 

they require less time and biologists 

generally agree that plants produce no 

more than one flowering stem per 

growing season, making this method a 

conservative count of how many plants 

actually exist at a site. Basal rosettes and 

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

count in dense herbaceous vegetation 

(NC Plant Conservation Program 

(NCPCP) 2018, unpaginated; White 

2018, entire). 

The species displays a relatively high 

level of genetic diversity based on 

analyses across the range of populations 

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

also significant population genetic 

differentiation and a majority of the 

genetic variance is attributed to 

variation within populations, suggesting 

that populations may be adapting to 

local environments (Apsit and Dixon 

2001, entire). Because this genetic 

variation exists, all populations should 

be maintained to conserve genetic 

diversity since each population contains 

only a subset of the total genetic 

variation. Regional population 

differentiation may be important in the 

selection of material to establish new 

populations, which suggests that, for 

greatest success, reintroduction projects 

use local source material (Apsit and 

Dixon 2001, p. 76). 

Recovery 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species, 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 

recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, that the species be 

removed from the List. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and 

determinations with respect to the 

species’ status must be made consistent 

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

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species, is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40102 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently, and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, align with all 

criteria provided in a recovery plan. 

Recovery Criteria 

The Smooth Coneflower Recovery 

Plan was approved by the Service on 

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

includes recovery criteria intended to 

indicate when threats to the species 

have been addressed to the point the 

species may no longer meet the 

definition of an endangered species or 

threatened species and describes actions 

or tasks necessary to achieve those 

criteria. 

The recovery plan identifies five 

downlisting criteria for smooth 

coneflower (Service 1995, p. 12): 

1. Twelve (12) geographically distinct, 

self-sustaining populations are 

protected across the species’ range, 

including populations in at least two 

counties in VA, two counties in NC, two 

counties in SC, and one county in GA; 

2. At least nine of these populations 

must be in areas within the species’ 

native ecosystem (not in gardens or 

similar artificial settings) that are in 

permanent conservation ownership and 

management; 

3. Managers have been designated for 

each protected population; 

4. Management plans have been 

developed and implemented for each 

protected population; and 

5. Populations have been maintained 

at stable or increasing levels for 5 years. 

The recovery plan also identifies the 

following five delisting criteria for 

smooth coneflower (Service 1995, p. 

12): 

1. Fifteen (15) geographically distinct, 

self-sustaining populations are 

protected across the species’ range, 

including populations in at least two 

counties in VA, two counties in NC, two 

counties in SC, and one county in GA; 

2. At least nine of these populations 

must be in areas within the species’ 

native ecosystem (not in gardens or 

similar artificial settings) that are in 

permanent conservation ownership and 

management; 

3. Managers have been designated for 

each protected population; 

4. Management plans have been 

developed and implemented for each 

protected population; and 

5. Populations have been maintained 

at stable or increasing levels for 10 

years. 

Downlisting/Delisting Criteria 1 and 2 

(Twelve (12) or Fifteen (15) Protected 

Self-Sustaining Populations in Native 

Ecosystem) 

Both criteria 1 and 2 for downlisting 

and delisting have been met. We 

currently know of 44 extant populations 

throughout the species’ range. Of those 

44, 16 populations ranked with 

excellent to good viability are found in 

areas where the habitat is under 

protective status (like a National Forest). 

As of 2019, 33 smooth coneflower 

populations are either on Federal lands 

or are in conservation ownership (9 in 

GA, 5 in NC, 12 in SC, and 7 in VA), 

16 of which are ranked A (excellent 

viability; see tables 2 and 3, below), AB 

(excellent/good viability), or B (good 

viability) by their respective State 

Natural Heritage Programs (4 in GA, 3 

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

populations are considered protected 

because they occur on several National 

Forests managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS), as well as lands owned 

and managed by State agencies, The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC), U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. 

Department of Energy (USDOE), and 

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). 

Management plans in existence for 

many of these populations are detailed 

below. 

TABLE 2—STATE DISTRIBUTION, HERITAGE PROGRAM RANK, OWNERSHIP, AND AVAILABILITY OF MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR

THE HIGHLY RESILIENT, PROTECTED POPULATIONS

State Population 

name Heritage rank * Ownership Management plan? 

GA .................................................................. GA-A AB Federal ........................................................... yes. 

GA .................................................................. GA–B B Federal ........................................................... yes. 

GA .................................................................. GA–C B Federal ........................................................... yes. 

GA .................................................................. GA–D B Federal ........................................................... yes. 

NC .................................................................. NC–A A Federal, State ................................................. no. 

NC .................................................................. NC–B A State ............................................................... yes. 

NC .................................................................. NC–C B Federal ........................................................... no. 

SC .................................................................. SC–A AB Federal ........................................................... yes. 

SC .................................................................. SC–B B Federal ........................................................... yes. 

SC .................................................................. SC–C A Federal, State ................................................. yes. 

SC .................................................................. SC–D A Federal ........................................................... yes. 

SC .................................................................. SC–E AB Federal ........................................................... yes. 

VA ................................................................... VA–A A State ............................................................... yes. 

VA ................................................................... VA–B A Private ............................................................ yes. 

VA ................................................................... VA–C AB State ............................................................... no. 

VA ................................................................... VA–D AB State ............................................................... yes. 

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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40103 

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, AB, or 

B (six are ranked A, five are ranked AB, 

and five are ranked B (see tables 2 and 

3)). These 16 highly resilient 

populations (i.e., those that have good to 

excellent viability scores (Table 3)) are 

scattered across the range of the species, 

including one county in GA (Stephens), 

two counties in NC (Durham and 

Granville), two counties in SC (Barnwell 

and Oconee), and three counties in VA 

(Franklin, Halifax, and Montgomery). 

These populations span mountain, 

piedmont, and coastal plain 

physiographic provinces. 

TABLE 3—SMOOTH CONEFLOWER RANKING CRITERIA

Heritage rank Viability Number of plants Size and type of habitat Management regime 

A ..................... Excellent ........ >1,000; flowering annually >5 acres (>2 hectares); open glade or 

prairie remnant.

open (disturbed) from periodic fires, 

optimal soil conditions. 

B ..................... Good .............. 100–1,000; most flowering annually.1–5 acres; open glade or prairie remnant.mostly open by periodic fires or other 

disturbance. 

C ..................... Fair ................. 10–100; 50% or fewer 

flowering annually.

any size glade or prairie remnant; or 

isolated roadside or utility ROW with 

remnant glade or prairie flora.

limited. 

D ..................... Poor ............... <10; may not fewer flower 

annually.

remnant glades or isolated ROWs ....... limited. 

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 

highly resilient, protected populations 

on Federal, State, and private 

conservation lands, to ensure that a land 

manager responsible for overseeing the 

management of smooth coneflower has 

been assigned. The four highly resilient 

populations in GA are managed by the 

USFS (Chattahoochee-Oconee National 

Forest) with assistance from the Atlanta 

Botanical Garden, State Botanical 

Garden of Georgia, and Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources 

(GADNR). The three highly resilient 

populations in NC are managed by the 

North Carolina Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services 

(NCDACS) Research Stations Division, 

North Carolina Plant Conservation 

Program (NCPCP), USACE, and NC 

Botanical Garden (NCBG). In SC, most 

of the highly resilient populations occur 

on the Sumter National Forest, and four 

of the five highly resilient populations 

are managed by the Sumter National 

Forest, with one of those sites being coowned and managed by South Carolina 

Heritage Trust Program (SCHTP) as a 

Heritage Trust Preserve. The other 

highly resilient population, at the 

Savannah River Site, is owned by the 

USDOE and managed by the USFS. In 

VA, the four highly resilient 

populations are managed by the Virginia 

Division of Natural Heritage (VADNH), 

USFS (George Washington National 

Forest), and TNC. 

Site managers have been identified for 

all 16 highly resilient populations 

identified under criteria 1 and 2 above; 

therefore, we consider this criterion to 

have been met. 

Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 4 

(Management Plans Implemented) 

Because smooth coneflower requires 

early to mid-successional habitat, all 

highly resilient populations have 

received and will require some form of 

management in perpetuity to help 

maintain habitat in the right balance so 

that populations can thrive. 

Management techniques include the use 

of prescribed fire, well-timed mowing, 

mechanical clearing (including the use 

of chain saws to cut trees), and 

herbicides (selectively applied to cut 

stumps to prevent regrowth). All of 

these management actions have been 

implemented separately or in 

combination to sustain suitable habitat 

for smooth coneflower. Of the 16 highly 

resilient populations considered in 

criteria 1 and 2, 13 of them can be 

considered to be included in 

management plans. However, these 

plans vary in scope and level of 

specificity toward smooth coneflower, 

and most plans are outdated. Only six 

of the plans are specific to the 

management of smooth coneflower, 

while the others address the overall 

management of an entire site but 

include some actions that may be 

beneficial to smooth coneflower. Of the 

six plans that are specific to the 

management of smooth coneflower, four 

were developed in the mid-1990s, and 

two were developed in the early 2000s. 

In the past 20 years, we have learned a 

lot about how to best manage the 

species with fire, as well as how to 

manage for invasive species. Many of 

these management practices (e.g., 

conducting prescribed burns or 

mechanical clearing every 3 to 5 years, 

or controlling invasive species) need to 

be incorporated into older management 

plans. 

Management plans exist for three of 

the four highly resilient smooth 

coneflower populations in VA, although 

new information about fire intervals 

could improve management of several 

sites (e.g., VA–A, VA–B, and VA–D) 

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

2007, p. 5; USDA Forest Service 2014, 

entire). In NC, the site of the largest 

smooth coneflower population (NC–B) 

has been actively managed using 

prescribed fire, mowing, and other 

mechanical means as recommended by 

species experts (Barnett-Lawrence 1994, 

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

1996, unpaginated), but two of the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40104 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

highly resilient populations lack 

management plans altogether. In SC, all 

highly resilient populations occurring 

on the Sumter National Forest in SC 

(SC–A, SC–B, SC–C, and SC–D) are 

managed by prescribed fire and 

mechanical clearing. While the Sumter 

National Forest Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan is from 

2004, this plan directs the USFS to 

maintain or restore at least eight selfsustaining populations of smooth 

coneflower (USDA Forest Service 2004, 

pp. 2–9; Roecker 2001, entire), a 

practice that is in effect today. In GA, 

the USFS adequately uses prescribed 

fire, mechanical clearing, and herbicide 

application to maintain open, glade-like 

woodland habitat for smooth coneflower 

and associated species at highly 

resilient populations (GA–A, GA–B, 

GA–C, and GA–D). 

In summary, 13 of the 16 highly 

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

coneflower populations are included in 

management plans, but only 6 of them 

specifically address smooth coneflower 

management. These plans vary in level 

of detail, scope, and time commitment, 

and several need to be updated with 

improved fire management and invasive 

species management practices. We find 

that the implementation of regular, 

dedicated management for the highly 

resilient populations is the reason these 

smooth coneflower populations are 

large, healthy, and viable, and 

contribute toward the recovery of the 

species. However, the Service considers 

criterion 4 for smooth coneflower to 

have been only partially met because 

not all populations have management 

plans, and several of the existing plans 

are out of date. The Service has 

developed a template management plan 

that land managers can use as a guide 

when developing or updating rare 

species management plans, particularly 

those that focus on smooth coneflower 

management, and we will be working 

toward getting all plans established and 

updated as part of our ongoing recovery 

work. 

Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 5 (Stable 

or Increasing Populations for 5 or 10 

Years) 

Land managers conduct site visits to 

their respective smooth coneflower 

populations on a regular basis to assess 

population size and health and to 

determine what management actions, if 

any, are needed. Monitoring generally 

involves a flowering stem count, which 

is a conservative count of how many 

plants exist at a site (NCPCP 2018, 

unpaginated; White 2018, entire). 

Virginia smooth coneflower 

populations occur on USFS, TNC, and 

Virginia Department of Conservation 

and Recreation (VADCR) lands. These 

sites have been monitored by their 

respective land managers and 

researchers over the last 30 years. 

Because several of the smooth 

coneflower preserves in VA are large in 

size, a complete census has not been 

conducted every year, although the sites 

have been monitored during regular 

management activities. All four highly 

resilient populations in VA are 

considered stable over the 30+ years 

they have been monitored. 

Land managers in NC have collected 

monitoring data on their smooth 

coneflower populations for decades. Of 

the high resiliency smooth coneflower 

populations in North Carolina, one has 

been increasing over the 14-year 

monitoring period, and two are stable 

over the 31-year monitoring period 

(NCPCP 2018, unpaginated). 

South Carolina sites on the Sumter 

National Forest and a State-owned 

Heritage Preserve have been monitored 

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

A recent status survey of all of the 

smooth coneflower sites in SC 

determined that since 2006, trends 

indicated that for the most resilient SC 

smooth coneflower populations, four 

appear to be increasing in size, and one 

is considered stable, for at least the past 

14 years. 

All four of the highly resilient smooth 

coneflower populations in GA occur on 

the Chattahoochee-Oconee National 

Forest in northeastern GA. Biologists 

with the USFS, State Botanical Garden 

of Georgia, Atlanta Botanical Garden, 

GADNR, and Georgia Plant 

Conservation Alliance have visited 

these populations on a regular basis 

since the species was proposed for 

listing in 1991 and a Statewide status 

survey was conducted in 2000 (Sullivan 

2000, entire). Monitoring data are 

intermittent, but the four highly 

resilient populations have been 

considered stable for the past 20 years 

since the Statewide status survey (Suiter 

2020, pers. comm.). 

Without more detailed data, it is 

difficult to determine specific trends, 

but based on our analysis of monitoring 

data and recent observations, we 

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

B- ranked (good to excellent resiliency) 

protected populations have been stable 

or increasing for more than 10 years; 

therefore, we consider this recovery 

criterion to have been met. 

Summary 

The implementation of recovery 

actions for smooth coneflower has 

significantly reduced the risk of 

extinction for the species. As indicated 

above, many smooth coneflower 

populations are protected on public 

(Federal and State) and private lands, 

such as TNC preserves in VA. The most 

highly resilient smooth coneflower 

populations (i.e., those considered 

contributing to species’ recovery) are 

considered stable or increasing. Current 

information indicates that smooth 

coneflower is more abundant, and its 

range is somewhat larger, than when the 

species was listed. However, 

management plans for all protected 

populations are lacking, as only six 

specifically focus on management for 

smooth coneflower. Many of the 

existing management plans are out of 

date, from the 1990s and early 2000s, or 

are not being currently implemented. 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. We consider these same five 

factors in reclassifying a species from 

endangered to threatened (50 CFR 

424.11(c)). Even though we are not 

delisting the species at this time, we 

also consider the risk to the species if 

it were not listed under the Act to better 

understand the species’ future without 

the protections of the Act. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40105 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

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

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

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

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Services can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Summary of Biological Condition and 

Threats 

When we published the final rule to 

list smooth coneflower as an 

endangered species (57 FR 46340; 

October 8, 1992), the identified threats 

(factors) were the absence of natural 

disturbance (fire and/or grazing), 

highway construction and 

improvement, gas line installation, and 

residential and industrial development 

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

damage (Factor C); inadequacy of 

existing State regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D); and low genetic variability, 

herbicide use, and possible 

encroachment of exotic species (Factor 

E). 

The following analysis evaluates these 

previously identified threats, any other 

threats currently facing the species, and 

any other threats that are reasonably 

likely to affect the species in the 

foreseeable future, including 

cumulatively or synergistically. 

Habitat Degradation or Loss Due To 

Development and Absence of Natural 

Disturbance 

Smooth coneflower plants require 

open, sunny conditions to survive. 

Without regular disturbance such as 

fire, woody shrubs and trees create a 

dense canopy that prevents sunlight 

from reaching the forest floor where this 

herbaceous species occurs. Smooth 

coneflower is intolerant of dense shade 

and tends to die out after a few years of 

shady conditions. 

Smooth coneflower occurrences on 

private land are vulnerable to habitat 

loss due to degradation, which results 

from fire suppression or the absence of 

other disturbances that maintain the 

habitat in an open state. For example, in 

Rockingham County, NC, a small 

smooth coneflower population occurred 

on private land in an open woodland 

between a highway and a railroad track. 

The lack of management or fire resulted 

in the site becoming overgrown, and no 

plants have been observed there in 

recent years. To encourage smooth 

coneflower growth, the site needs fire or 

mechanical disturbance in order to 

remove woody vegetation and open the 

forest floor to sunlight (NCNHP 2019, 

unpaginated). 

Development projects, such as 

residential and commercial construction 

and highway and utility construction 

and maintenance, pose a threat to 

smooth coneflower populations by 

clearing areas where the species occurs, 

thereby destroying populations. Further, 

development in close proximity to 

smooth coneflower populations may 

preclude the ability to use fire as a 

management tool at nearby protected 

populations because of the threat of fires 

escaping the management area and 

objections to smoke blowing into 

developed areas. For example, a smooth 

coneflower population on a small parcel 

of USFS land in Habersham County, 

GA, has declined over recent years due 

the difficulty in managing fire on a 

parcel surrounded by private property. 

The lack of management has resulted in 

the growth of woody plants that have 

shaded smooth coneflower plants and 

resulted in this population’s decline 

(Radcliffe 2019, pers. comm.). As 

residential and commercial 

development continue to occur in the 

suburbs of Durham, NC, it will become 

harder to manage some of the adjacent 

smooth coneflower sites with fire 

(Starke 2019, pers. comm.). 

While we are not aware of any smooth 

coneflower populations that have been 

destroyed due to residential or 

commercial development since the 

species was listed, this threat remains a 

concern. Recently, a new subpopulation 

of smooth coneflower was discovered 

on a property in Durham County, NC, 

that is slated for development. If a rare 

plant survey had not been conducted 

and these plants discovered, they would 

have been destroyed by the 

development of the site (Starke 2019, 

pers. comm.). There are likely 

additional undiscovered populations of 

smooth coneflower that are subject to 

destruction. 

Development pressure based on 

urbanization predictions from the 

SLEUTH urban growth model indicate 

that all of the NC counties, more than 

half of the SC counties, and both of the 

northeastern GA counties of occurrence 

for smooth coneflower will exhibit high 

(greater than 90 percent) growth trends 

over the next 20 to 30 years as part of 

the ‘‘southern megalopolis,’’ or giant 

urban sprawl area in the Southeast 

(Terando et al. 2014, p. 3; Databasin 

2014, entire). Smooth coneflower 

populations that occur on private lands 

in these counties will continue to face 

threats from development and land 

conversion in the foreseeable future. 

Most of the VA counties of occurrence 

are outside the boundaries of the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40106 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

southern megalopolis and the VA urban 

crescent in the eastern part of the State 

(Databasin 2014, entire). 

Smooth coneflower occurs on 

roadsides and utility ROWs throughout 

the range of the species. These 

populations are vulnerable to 

management practices that could 

negatively impact or destroy them. 

Herbicides, which are typically harmful 

to all plants, are often used to manage 

vegetation along road shoulders and in 

utility ROWs. Herbicide damage can be 

temporary or permanent depending on 

the herbicide used and the rate of 

application. Although dormant season 

(winter) mowing is generally not 

problematic for disturbance-dependent 

species, as it helps reduce competition 

and maintain sites in an open condition, 

any mowing that occurs during the 

growing season but before plants 

produce mature seeds is considered 

harmful because it arrests seed 

development and reproductive potential 

for that year. Smooth coneflower plants 

growing on a utility ROW in Granville 

County, NC, were accidentally sprayed 

with herbicides, killing many plants in 

this population (NCNHP 2019, 

unpaginated). Herbicide damage to 

smooth coneflowers has also occurred at 

the Savannah River Site in SC, but the 

population was able to recover (White 

2018, Appendix 3, entire). Roadside and 

utility ROW occurrences are difficult to 

manage in an early successional state 

without harming smooth coneflower 

plants. For example, woody species 

encroachment has caused the decline of 

some smooth coneflower sites that occur 

in ROWs in Durham County, NC. In 

some cases, it is possible to manage 

lands adjacent to ROW populations by, 

for example, removing woody species to 

create suitable habitat for the species, 

encouraging the plant to gradually 

occupy habitat away from the ROW; 

however, adjacent, protected land does 

not always exist (Stark 2019, pers. 

comm.). In the status survey of smooth 

coneflower populations in SC, (White 

2018, appendix 3, entire) indicates that 

many populations still face competition 

by woody species, the presence of 

invasive species, and road ROW 

maintenance. 

The protection of some smooth 

coneflower populations has been 

accomplished through active 

management and reducing the impacts 

of development. These efforts are 

critical to the long-term survival of this 

species. Recognizing the importance of 

long-term management of smooth 

coneflower populations, management 

plans that incorporate the use of 

prescribed fire and/or mechanized 

vegetation control have been prepared 

for several populations. The Service is 

working with many landowners that 

have smooth coneflower populations to 

complete or update management plans 

for their populations, as most 

management plans were first developed 

in the 1990s and early 2000s and need 

to incorporate new fire management and 

invasive species management practices. 

In 2018, we provided land managers 

with a management plan outline to 

facilitate the completion of thorough 

management plans. Due to greater 

awareness of the important role of fire 

in natural systems, prescribed fire and 

mechanical thinning are now regularly 

used as management tools on National 

Forests, military bases, nature preserves, 

and other protected lands where smooth 

coneflower occurs. Land managers such 

as the USFS, DOD, USACE, and 

Savannah River Site, among others, use 

prescribed fire on a 2- to 4-year interval 

as a management tool to control woody 

vegetation that might otherwise shade 

this disturbance-dependent species. For 

sites that are not managed intentionally 

for smooth coneflower, management 

practices will likely continue even if the 

species is not listed under the Act, 

primarily because the active 

management benefits the overall habitat 

and meets the management objectives of 

the landowner. In general, the 

management benefits smooth 

coneflower, and without it, the habitat 

conditions for smooth coneflower 

would likely degrade and we would 

need to reassess the status of the species 

under the Act. For the most part, 

management plans for many of the 

protected populations of smooth 

coneflower have been in place for 

several years, but we do not know if 

management actions would change for 

these populations if the species were 

not listed. 

While development pressure on 

smooth coneflower populations on 

private lands remains, the threat of 

development for the most highly 

resilient populations is reduced, as they 

occur only on protected lands. As 

discussed earlier, many smooth 

coneflower populations occur on 

Federal lands, such as those owned or 

managed by the USFS (George 

Washington and Jefferson National 

Forests in VA, Sumter National Forest 

in SC, and Chattahoochee-Oconee 

National Forest in GA), USACE (Falls 

Lake), DOD (Fort Stewart and Fort 

Jackson Army Bases), and USDOE 

(Savannah River Site). These 

populations are protected on Federal 

lands from the threats of ecological 

succession or destruction due to 

development, primarily because Federal 

partners are vested in the protection of 

the species under their management 

plans. Some smooth coneflower sites 

occur on active military bases with 

limited public access, such as Fort 

Jackson and Fort Stewart Army Bases, 

providing further protection of these 

populations. Likewise, the Savannah 

River Site, a former nuclear weapons 

facility, is closed to the public, and no 

development or construction is allowed 

in the areas where smooth coneflower 

occurs. This USDOE site, designated as 

a National Environmental Research 

Park, is managed by the USFS. Several 

other populations are permanently 

protected on non-Federal lands by the 

VADNH, NCDACS, NCPCP, TNC, and 

Mecklenburg County (NC) Parks and 

Recreation Department. 

In response to impacts to populations 

of smooth coneflower in roadside and 

utility ROWs, State departments of 

transportation and utility companies, 

such as Duke Energy and Georgia 

Power, now have management 

agreements or memoranda of 

understanding with State wildlife 

agencies, State Natural Heritage 

Programs, the USFS, and other 

landowners to protect and manage 

smooth coneflower populations on their 

ROWs in a way that is protective of the 

species. 

While significant progress has been 

made to address the protection and 

management of many smooth 

coneflower populations, development 

pressure and management challenges 

associated with adjacent development 

continue to pose a threat to unprotected 

smooth coneflower populations. 

Populations that occur on private lands 

face threats from development and land 

conversion. Additionally, protected 

populations adjacent to private land can 

be difficult to manage with prescribed 

fire due to concerns of neighbors. 

Without proper management, woody 

vegetation could grow up and shade a 

smooth coneflower population to the 

point of causing decline or eradication 

in less than 10 years. Long-term 

management is still of concern to the 

Service, as several populations are not 

specifically considered in management 

plans nor have commitments to be 

managed into the future. Maintenance 

activities pose a threat to smooth 

coneflower populations that occur on 

roadside and utility ROWs. Despite 

agreements with State and Federal 

agencies to conduct ROW maintenance 

in a way that is protective of rare plants, 

accidents happen frequently. These sites 

are mowed or sprayed with herbicide on 

an irregular basis with varying levels of 

impacts. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40107 

Collection 

When we published the final rule to 

list smooth coneflower as an 

endangered species (57 FR 46340; 

October 8, 1992), there was concern that 

populations might be decimated by 

collectors interested in exploiting this 

species for the horticulture and 

pharmaceutical trades. We expected that 

publicity might generate increased 

demand for this species in the nursery 

trade. However, the final listing rule 

also mentioned that smooth coneflower, 

although offered for sale by a few native 

plant nurseries, was not a significant 

component of the commercial trade in 

native plants (57 FR 46340, October 8, 

1992, p. 46341). Currently, we are not 

aware of any plant nurseries that offer 

this species for sale, likely a result of the 

prohibitions on collecting endangered 

plants such as smooth coneflower. The 

only incidents of poaching known to the 

Service occurred at one site in GA. 

Flowers were broken off smooth 

coneflower plants at one of the roadside 

sites on Currahee Mountain, GA (Alley 

2018, pers. comm.). While there is 

potential that specialty nurseries would 

be interested in selling this species in 

the future, the Service concludes that 

the demand for wild-collected plants is 

low, as other species in the genus 

Echinacea can be readily propagated 

using common horticultural techniques. 

The concern in the final rule (57 FR 

46340; October 8, 1992) that this species 

would be collected for the 

pharmaceutical trade was based on 

observations of over-collection of other 

species of Echinacea in the midwestern 

United States for use in medicinal 

products. However, the rule also stated 

that ‘‘devastation’’ of smooth coneflower 

populations for the commercial 

pharmaceutical trade has not yet been 

documented (57 FR 46340, October 8, 

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

the 27 years that smooth coneflower has 

been listed, the Service has not been 

aware of any incidents of poaching this 

species for use in medicinal products. 

Because plants in the genus Echinacea 

are still used for medicinal purposes, 

the threat of this activity remains, but 

the probability is low due to relatively 

small population sizes compared to 

other species in the genus Echinacea 

that grow in midwestern States. 

Moreover, land managers have not 

reported poaching as a significant threat 

to their smooth coneflower populations 

because other species of Echinacea are 

so much more numerous. 

Various types of academic research 

have been conducted on smooth 

coneflower since the species was listed 

in 1992. These studies involved the 

collection of leaves, stems, flowers, and 

seeds for laboratory experiments or the 

collection of voucher specimens for 

herbaria. The North Carolina Botanical 

Garden (NCBG), State Botanical Garden 

of Georgia, and Atlanta Botanical 

Garden have collected smooth 

coneflower seeds over the years to be 

used in restoration projects in their 

respective States. These botanical 

gardens follow the Center for Plant 

Conservation guidelines for seed 

collection and minimize impacts to 

populations, a protocol that is followed 

for all species, regardless of whether the 

species is federally listed or not (Kunz 

2018, pers. comm.). We evaluated these 

projects before they were initiated and 

determined that the level of collection 

was unlikely to pose any potential 

threat of overutilization for the species. 

We do not find that any of these 

research or seed banking projects have 

had long-term negative effects on 

smooth coneflower. If the species were 

not listed, we do not anticipate a 

significant increase in collection 

pressure, given current lack of poaching 

and low interest in the species. 

We conclude that collection is not a 

major threat to the continued existence 

of smooth coneflower, as long as any 

future collection follows best 

conservation practices described in 

Menges et al. (2004, entire) and by the 

Center for Plant Conservation Best 

Practices. 

Damage Due to Herbivory by Beetles 

and Deer 

When we listed smooth coneflower as 

an endangered species (57 FR 46340; 

October 8, 1992), leaf beetles in the 

family Chrysomelidae had been 

observed on smooth coneflower in NC, 

but their effects were unknown. As 

mentioned in the 2011 5-year review, a 

nonnative longhorn beetle (Hemierana 

marginata; family Cerambycidae) was 

identified at some smooth coneflower 

populations in NC. This beetle chews 

into the flowering stem and causes 

flowers to die before producing viable 

seeds. While this longhorn beetle has 

been reported from a few smooth 

coneflower populations in two NC 

counties, healthy smooth coneflower 

populations remain at these sites. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

nonnative longhorn beetle is not a threat 

at this time. 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus) have been documented 

browsing on the flower heads of smooth 

coneflower, but deer herbivory on the 

leaves has not been observed (Starke 

2019, pers. comm.). No other herbivory 

has been observed. Based on the best 

available information at this time, we 

conclude that neither deer browsing nor 

any other herbivory is causing 

population-level effects to smooth 

coneflower. 

State Regulatory Protections 

Smooth coneflower is listed as ‘‘State 

Endangered’’ by the GADNR. The 

relevant State law (Rules and 

Regulations of the State of Georgia, 

Subject 391–4–10, Protection of 

Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or 

Unusual Species) prohibits, among 

other things, the transfer of a State-listed 

plant from one property to another 

without the written permission of the 

landowner where the species was 

found. Violations of this law constitute 

a misdemeanor. In addition, the Georgia 

Environmental Policy Act (GA Code, 

title 12, chapter 16, article 1) requires 

the assessment of major proposed 

agency impacts on biological resources. 

Georgia’s Wildflower Preservation Act 

of 1973 (GA Code, title 12, chapter 6, 

article 3) protects rare plants. However, 

the Georgia Wildflower Preservation Act 

does not protect plants on private 

property. Regardless, nearly all known 

smooth coneflower populations in GA 

occur on Federal lands such as the 

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest 

and DOD (Department of the Army) 

installations such as Fort Stewart 

(Moffett 2018, pers. comm.). As 

discussed above (see Habitat 

Degradation or Loss Due to 

Development and Absence of Natural 

Disturbance), Federal lands provide 

some protection to smooth coneflower 

populations by limiting public access 

and reducing the threat of development, 

as well as ensuring agency-specific 

management plans. 

Smooth coneflower is listed as 

‘‘endangered’’ in NC by the NCPCP and 

protected by the Plant Protection and 

Conservation Act of 1979 (NC General 

Statutes, chapter 106, article 19B). This 

law prevents the removal of State-listed 

plants from the land without written 

permission of the landowner. However, 

it does not regulate destruction or 

mandate protection. It authorizes the 

NCPCP to establish nature preserves for 

protected species and their habitats. To 

that end, the NCPCP owns and manages 

several tracts of land as preserves for the 

protection of smooth coneflower and 

other associated rare plants. 

The Virginia Endangered Plant and 

Insect Species Act (Code of Virginia, 

title 3.2, chapter 10), as amended, 

provides for the official listing and 

recovery of endangered and threatened 

plant and insect species in VA. The 

VADNH lists smooth coneflower as 

‘‘threatened’’ in the State (VA 

Administrative Code, title 2, agency 5, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40108 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

chapter 320, section 5–320–10 (2VAC5– 

320–10); Townsend 2018, p. 16). 

Virginia law prohibits the removal and 

sale or gifting of State-listed plant 

species from land other than a person’s 

own land. The VADCR owns three 

natural area preserves that protect 

populations of smooth coneflower. The 

Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect 

Species Act has not played a major role 

in safeguarding smooth coneflower 

populations (Townsend 2019, pers. 

comm.). 

Smooth coneflower is on the South 

Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources’ list of rare, threatened, and 

endangered species of SC (SCHTP 2018, 

unpaginated); however, neither the law 

that authorizes the creation of this list, 

nor any other State law, provides 

general protection to listed plants in SC. 

Populations of smooth coneflower are 

more abundant and widely distributed 

than when it was listed as an 

endangered species in 1992. It is also 

listed as endangered or threatened by 

three of the four States where it occurs 

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

of this and other State-listed species on 

private land is challenging. State 

prohibitions against taking are difficult 

to enforce and do not cover adverse 

alterations of habitats such as exclusion 

of fire. As previously mentioned in this 

rule, the majority of the highest ranked 

populations (Ranks A, AB, and B) occur 

on protected Federal lands and other 

conservation properties. 

Genetics 

The final rule listing smooth 

coneflower as an endangered species (57 

FR 46340; October 8, 1992) stated that, 

at that time, the remaining smooth 

coneflower populations contained few 

individual plants and there may have 

been low genetic variability within 

populations, making each remaining 

population important. However, we 

now know that smooth coneflower 

displays a relatively high level of 

diversity (Peters et al. 2009, entire). 

Thus, populations may be able to 

respond to selection pressures due to 

continued genetic exchange sustained 

by the outcrossing mating system of the 

species. 

Encroachment From Invasive Species 

Encroachment by nonnative, invasive 

plants poses a threat to some smooth 

coneflower populations, especially 

those occurrences located on highway 

ROWs or in utility line easements (such 

as power lines). These disturbed 

habitats often include nonnative 

species, some of which can become 

invasive. Invasive species change the 

floristic composition of these areas, 

compete for nutrients, limit germination 

of seeds (by changing or eliminating that 

niche/microenvironment), and may 

shade out smooth coneflower plants. 

Another impact is the use of herbicides 

on invasive species that has the 

secondary effect of killing smooth 

coneflower. Smooth coneflower 

populations face threats by nonnative, 

invasive plants such as Japanese 

honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), 

Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), 

shrubby lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor), 

Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium 

vimineum), and autumn olive 

(Elaeagnus umbellata) (White 2019, 

entire). 

Climate Change 

Based on observations of climatic 

conditions over a period of 

approximately 20 years, there is some 

biological and historical evidence to 

indicate that smooth coneflower is 

adapted to persist with the range of 

potential effects of climate change, 

including more frequent droughts 

(below average rainfall over a time 

period greater than the historical range 

of variability) and increased average 

maximum temperatures. Smooth 

coneflower is typically found in open, 

sunny areas with little to no shade and 

high sun exposure. These sites often 

occur in fairly xeric conditions such as 

open woods, glades, barrens, roadsides, 

clear cuts, dry limestone bluffs, and 

road and power line ROWs. Even 

though smooth coneflower populations 

in NC experienced severe droughts in 

2007 and 2010, dry conditions did not 

negatively influence flower production 

(NCPCP 2018, entire). All natural 

populations in NC have survived 

through drought years and recovered. 

Despite some drought years, smooth 

coneflower populations in SC have 

generally experienced positive trends 

over the last 20 years, indicating that the 

species is not negatively affected by 

droughts (White 2018, entire). Smooth 

coneflower plants have sustained 

populations for years on dry clay road 

cuts (White 2019, pers. comm.). 

Adaptations to survive in sunny areas 

likely benefit this species during 

drought conditions. Further, the 

perennial growth habitat and 

underground rhizomes likely allow 

smooth coneflower to be more resilient 

to drought conditions. 

To generate future climate projections 

across the range of smooth coneflower, 

we used the National Climate Change 

Viewer (NCCV), a tool developed by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that 

allows the user to view climate 

projections at the State, county, and 

watershed level (Alder and Hostetler 

2017, entire). The model simulates the 

response of the water balance to changes 

in temperature and precipitation in the 

climate models (30 separate models 

developed by the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration). The NCCV 

also provides access to comprehensive 

summary reports for States, counties, 

and watersheds. 

Using the NCCV and using 

representative concentration pathways 

(RCP) greenhouse gas emission 

scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5) as possible 

outcomes, we calculated projected 

annual mean changes for maximum air 

temperature and precipitation for the 

period 2050–2074 in VA, NC, SC, and 

GA. Based on these results, all four 

States within the range of smooth 

coneflower will be subjected to higher 

maximum air temperatures (annual 

mean increase of 1.9–2.2 degrees Celsius 

(°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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40109 

generated a vulnerability rating of 

‘‘moderately vulnerable’’ for smooth 

coneflower, suggesting that the species’ 

abundance and/or range extent is likely 

to decrease slightly by 2050. Factors 

influencing the species’ moderate 

vulnerability include its restricted 

dispersal ability, anthropogenic barriers, 

predicted land use changes, dependence 

on a specific disturbance regime (often 

fire), and restriction to uncommon 

geological features. 

Although the model suggested that 

smooth coneflower is sensitive to 

climate change and could be adversely 

affected in future years, there are a 

number of weaknesses associated with 

the CCVI (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, 

pp. 16–17). The specific weaknesses 

identified are: (1) The CCVI is weighted 

too heavily towards direct exposure to 

climate change (projected changes to 

future temperature and precipitation 

conditions that have high levels of 

uncertainties); (2) some important plant 

attributes are missing (mating system 

and pollinator specificity); (3) it is very 

difficult to complete scoring for a given 

species because some information is 

simply lacking; (4) some scoring 

guidelines are too simplistic (Anacker 

and Leidholm 2012, pp. 16–17); and (5) 

the model does not account for impacts 

to species’ vital rates. 

Topographic complexity is a potential 

complementary factor in assessing 

vulnerability to climate change 

(Anacker and Leidholm 2012, pp. 12– 

16). Within smooth coneflower’s range, 

the Appalachian and Allegheny 

mountains are predicted to have slightly 

higher temperature changes as a result 

of climate change than the piedmont 

and coastal plain counties, so smooth 

coneflower populations in the 

mountains on the north end of the range 

may be more vulnerable when 

compared to those that occur, for 

example, in the coastal plain. 

In summary, while smooth 

coneflower is considered moderately 

vulnerable to range contraction from 

future climate change, the predicted 

temperature and precipitation changes 

for both moderate (RCP 4.5) and extreme 

(RCP 8.5) scenarios indicate only 

slightly hotter and drier conditions by 

2074. Thus, smooth coneflower is 

expected to have little to no change for 

any populations due to drought or 

temperature changes that are predicted 

for the future. Therefore, we conclude 

that climate change is not likely a major 

factor affecting the species’ resiliency 

into the foreseeable future. 

Stochastic Events 

Stochastic events (environmental and 

genetic stochasticity) do not appear to 

be adversely affecting populations of 

smooth coneflower. Environmental 

stochasticity refers to variation in 

recruitment and mortality rates in 

response to weather, disease, 

competition, predation, or other factors 

external to the population. While 

drought and the timing and amount of 

rainfall are likely important factors in 

seed germination and establishment of 

smooth coneflower, we do not have any 

evidence of how these factors directly 

affect this species. Smooth coneflower 

soil seed banks are low to nonexistent, 

which could exacerbate the potential 

effects of stochastic events because the 

species does not have the seed bank to 

rely on for future recruitment (Walker 

2009, p. 12); however, we have not yet 

observed that the low seedbank has 

affected highly resilient populations. 

With regard to genetic stochasticity, 

smooth coneflower populations have 

significant levels of population diversity 

and exhibit substantial population 

genetic differentiation (Peters et al. 

2009, p. 12) (see Genetics, above), as 

such any genetic stochasticity such as 

allee effects or genetic bottlenecks are 

not likely. Based on the best available 

information, we conclude that 

environmental and genetic stochasticity 

do not pose a threat to smooth 

coneflower. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of encroaching 

development adjacent to protected sites 

and the management challenges that 

accompany that threat will continue to 

affect the species into the future. 

Increasing development adjacent to 

protected sites will likely lead to 

decreases in managing with prescribed 

burning in the future, which may or 

may not be replaced with adequate and 

appropriate habitat management by 

other means that are more expensive 

than managing with fire. The type of 

development also factors into 

management ability and flexibility, with 

major roads and places with vulnerable 

populations weighing more heavily on 

the decision of if/when to burn than 

other types of development. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

June 24, 2021 (86 FR 33159), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by August 23, 2021. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. A newspaper notice 

inviting general public comment was 

published in the public notice section of 

USA Today on July 12, 2021. We did 

not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. We received four public 

comments, primarily in support of our 

proposed downlisting of smooth 

coneflower, during the proposed rule’s 

public comment period, but none raised 

issues substantial enough to change our 

conclusions from the proposed rule. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we sought peer review of the proposed 

reclassification rule. The Service sent 

the proposed rule to four independent 

peer reviewers who had expertise in 

smooth coneflower ecology and the 

threats to its habitat. We received 

responses from two of the peer 

reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the information contained in 

the proposed reclassification rule. The 

peer reviewers generally concurred with 

our methods and conclusions, and 

provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions to 

improve the final rule. Peer reviewer 

comments are addressed in the 

following summary and were 

incorporated into this final rule, as 

appropriate. 

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer 

indicated that the studies we cited for 

information on reproductive biology 

seem to conflict, stating that while one 

cited study includes butterflies as 

pollinators, another more correctly 

identifies butterflies as visitors 

collecting nectar, not as effective 

pollinators. 

Our Response: These two statements 

in the proposed rule were somewhat 

confusing. Based on the literature cited, 

skippers, butterflies, and wasps are 

frequent floral visitors; however, bees 

are believed to be the most effective 

pollinators (Gadd 2006, p. 15; Collins 

and Fore 2009, pp. 452–454). We have 

made minor edits to this final rule to 

clarify this distinction. 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that we provide reference to 

best management practices for the 

downlisting/delisting criterion 4 

(management plans implemented). They 

also suggested that we comment on 

where outdated management plans fall 

short of current knowledge (e.g., 

updated fire frequency, timing, etc.). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40110 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Our Response: In the proposed rule 

and this final rule, we include best 

management practices where we 

indicate that smooth coneflowers 

require early to mid-successional habitat 

provided via management techniques 

that include the use of prescribed fire on 

3- to 5-year rotations, or well-timed 

mowing or mechanical clearing, and the 

control of invasive species with 

herbicides selectively applied to cut 

stumps to prevent growth. We assert 

that maintaining open habitat (through 

prescribed fire or mechanical clearing) 

and invasive species control are 

important management practices that 

are critical to the long-term survival of 

smooth coneflower and have included 

reference to these practices in this final 

rule. We also note that the Service is 

working with land managers to update 

management plans by providing a 

template as a guide including how to 

best manage smooth coneflower with 

fire and for invasive species, which will 

help improve the seven generic 

management plans and the six outdated 

management plans mentioned above in 

Downlisting/Delisting Criterion 4 

(Management plans implemented). 

(3) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that our conclusion regarding 

collection threat has some flaws, noting 

that the proposed rule indicated that the 

incidence of collection was limited and 

the Service indicated that the collection 

that did take place was conducted using 

very conservative practices. The peer 

reviewer suggested that the conclusion 

should be revised to state that 

overcollection is not a major threat as 

long as any future collection follows 

best conservation practices. 

Our Response: Limited collection of 

smooth coneflower has occurred over 

time, but has been minimal in scope and 

not been a major threat to the species. 

Any future collection efforts should 

follow best conservation practices, as 

described in Menges et al. (2004) and by 

Center for Plant Conservation Best 

Practices. We noted in the proposed rule 

and reiterate in this final rule that 

overcollection has not been documented 

for the species (see Collection, above). 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that the climate models we 

used do not account for impacts to the 

species’ vital rates (i.e., changes in 

survivorship/mortality, fecundity). The 

peer reviewer indicated that vital rates 

can be broadly used to look at range 

contraction but have long been used 

with metrics like population viability 

analyses to determine persistence/threat 

of individual sites/populations. 

However, the peer reviewer agreed that 

based on the information in the 

proposed reclassification, smooth 

coneflower should have little changes at 

individual populations due to drought 

and temperature changes under 

predicted climate change. 

Our Response: The climate change 

models we used do not account for 

impacts to the species’ vital rates. 

However, given that smooth coneflower 

is tolerant of increased temperatures 

and drought, we have determined that 

climate change is not likely a major 

factor affecting the species’ resiliency 

into the foreseeable future. 

Determination of Smooth Coneflower’s 

Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether a species meets the definition 

of endangered species or threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

As also described above, the term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. Data that are 

typically relevant to assessing the 

species’ biological response include 

species-specific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. Where we had 

data over longer time frames, we 

analyzed those data (e.g., climate data); 

however, for the factors most influential 

in affecting the status of the smooth 

coneflower, such as development and 

succession due to lack of adequate 

management, we could only reliably 

predict the magnitude of the primary 

threats and the subsequent effects on 

smooth coneflower over a time frame of 

20 to 30 years. Therefore, we consider 

the foreseeable future to be 20–30 . 

Threats that are reasonably likely to 

affect the species in the foreseeable 

future include habitat loss due to 

development pressure on private lands 

and habitat succession due to lack of 

adequate management (see Habitat 

Degradation or Loss Due to 

Development and Absence of Natural 

Disturbance, above), including fire 

suppression near or on private lands 

and accidental mowing and herbicide 

application from roadside maintenance 

activities. Thus, all populations of 

smooth coneflower that are not actively 

managed or formally protected remain 

at risk of extirpation in the future. The 

20–30 year period reflects the range 

from the time when the species was 

listed (1992) to the present (30 years), 

and provides a timeframe of reference 

observations that enables the Service to 

predict future management scenarios for 

the species and the species’ response to 

threats and management actions. This 

prior experience indicates that a 20 to 

30 year timeframe is the expected 

period over which implementation of 

management practices (such as 

prescribed fire) by conservation partners 

and tracking of the species’ response to 

managed habitat improvement is 

reliable. Further, this time period 

coincides with the SLEUTH urban 

growth models, allowing us to make 

reliable predictions with respect to the 

threat of development. For formally 

protected populations, we expect 

management of the threat of fire 

suppression to continue as part of 

ongoing management well into the 

future. Therefore, we used the 20- to 30- 

year timeframe in developing our 

projections of future conditions for 

smooth coneflower. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we find that smooth 

coneflower continues to face threats 

from habitat succession (resulting from 

lack of fire or other management), 

particularly in areas where development 

is increasing near existing populations, 

thus making fire management difficult. 

In addition, development pressure, 

especially for unprotected populations 

on private lands, remains a concern. We 

are concerned about long-term 

management because several 

populations do not have management 

plans or the management plans no 

longer reflect the best available science. 

Even populations occurring on 

protected land adjacent to private lands 

are becoming increasingly more difficult 

to manage due to neighbors’ concerns 

about nearby fires and smoke pollution. 

Even with agreements in place to 

protect them, populations in roadside 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40111 

and utility ROWs still face threats from 

maintenance activities, especially 

herbicide spraying and mowing. The 

decline or disappearance of some 

smooth coneflower populations across 

the range of the species has been 

documented in Natural Heritage 

Program records and is attributed to 

habitat loss. Habitat loss (Factor A) is 

considered to be a moderate threat 

currently and is expected to continue in 

the foreseeable future. 

At the time of listing in 1992, there 

was concern that smooth coneflower 

plants would be collected for the 

horticulture or pharmaceutical trade 

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

collecting is currently a threat to this 

species or is expected to be in the 

foreseeable future. 

Disease and predation (Factor C) were 

not identified as a significant threat to 

smooth coneflower when the species 

was listed in 1992. Natural herbivory by 

insects and mammals may occur, but it 

is a considered a low-magnitude threat 

because the species has sustained 

populations and there is no indication 

that the magnitude of an undetermined 

natural predation pressure significantly 

affects smooth coneflower survival. We 

find that disease and predation are not 

currently threats to this species, and we 

do not expect them to be threats in the 

foreseeable future. 

The existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) are not adequate to protect 

smooth coneflower from development 

and habitat succession. Populations of 

smooth coneflower on USFS, DOD, and 

USDOE lands receive some protection 

by management protocols applicable to 

those lands. Furthermore, some 

populations in NC, SC, and VA occur on 

State-owned lands managed by their 

respective Natural Heritage Programs or 

the NCDACS as ‘‘dedicated nature 

preserves.’’ However, while NC, GA, 

and VA have plant protection laws, they 

only regulate the collection and trade of 

listed species and do not prohibit the 

destruction of populations on private 

lands or otherwise mandate protection. 

There is no State law protecting rare 

plants in SC. 

Other natural and manmade factors 

affecting the continued existence (Factor 

E) of smooth coneflower identified at 

the time of listing (1992) include low 

genetic variability within populations, 

encroachment by exotic species, 

herbicide use, and the importance of 

periodic disturbance (addressed above 

under Factor A). Since listing, climate 

change is another factor that has been 

identified. Of these threats, 

encroachment by exotic (invasive) 

species and use of herbicides to manage 

those exotic species continue to be a 

threat to smooth coneflower 

populations. New information since the 

time of listing indicates that smooth 

coneflower displays a relatively high 

level of diversity and that populations 

may be able to respond to selection 

pressures and maintain viability due to 

continued genetic exchange sustained 

by the outcrossing mating system of the 

species. Based on the number, 

distribution, and genetic diversity of the 

species, we conclude that potential 

impacts associated with stochastic 

events are not a threat to smooth 

coneflower. Despite our uncertainty 

about the species’ vulnerability to 

climate change, we do not consider 

climate change to be a threat to smooth 

coneflower based on the current 

resiliency of the species and its 

demonstrated tolerance to periods of 

drought. 

Further, since the species’ 1992 listing 

under the Act, new smooth coneflower 

occurrences have been discovered 

throughout the range of the species, 

especially with the new sites in the 

coastal plain of GA and SC. Our 

understanding of the species’ 

distribution has improved as a result of 

increased survey efforts; the species is 

now known from 44 populations (up 

from 21 populations at the time of 

listing), 16 of which currently have high 

to medium resiliency. The species’ 

geographic representation is good, given 

the distribution of highly resilient 

populations over a four-State area. We 

believe that this improvement in the 

species’ viability demonstrates that it is 

not currently in danger of extinction 

throughout its range despite the 

persistence of the above-described 

threats. 

In conclusion, based on our 

assessment of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that while smooth coneflower 

populations continue to face threats 

from habitat loss and invasive species, 

and existing regulatory mechanisms are 

currently inadequate to protect some 

smooth coneflower populations from 

development and habitat succession, 

there are currently 16 protected, high 

resiliency smooth coneflower 

populations and a total of 44 

populations, up from 21 populations at 

the time of listing. Therefore, the 

species no longer meets the Act’s 

definition of an endangered species. 

We, therefore, proceed with 

determining whether smooth 

coneflower meets the Act’s definition of 

a threatened species. The ongoing 

threats of habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, habitat succession, and 

encroachment of nonnative and invasive 

species are of sufficient imminence, 

scope, or magnitude to affect the 

resiliency of smooth coneflower 

populations for the foreseeable future. 

The species relies on management such 

as prescribed fire and mechanical 

clearing to maintain its habitat. 

However, management plans for most of 

the areas in which the species is 

protected are outdated, and it is 

uncertain how those plans will continue 

to be implemented. Threatened 

development near protected sites could 

impede management of those sites with 

fire. Adequate management 

commitments would need to be secured 

for more populations before the species 

could be delisted. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that although smooth 

coneflower is not currently in danger of 

extinction, but it is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

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

(Center for Biological Diversity), vacated 

the aspect of our Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

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

that provided that the Service does not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, 

we proceed to evaluating whether the 

species is endangered in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which both (1) the portion is 

significant; and (2) the species is in 

danger of extinction in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be 

more efficient for us to address the 

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

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. In 

undertaking this analysis for smooth 

coneflower, we choose to address the 

status question first—we consider 

information pertaining to the geographic 

distribution of both the species and the 

threats that the species faces to identify 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

any portions of the range where the 

species is endangered. 

For smooth coneflower, we 

considered whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale, which 

may indicate this portion could have a 

different status. We examined the 

threats of habitat succession, habitat 

loss, and invasive species, as well as the 

cumulative effects of these threats, and 

considered whether management 

actions were being implemented. 

Smooth coneflower populations on 

private lands throughout the range face 

the threat of development and are not 

being managed with prescribed fire. 

However, while the development threat 

is concentrated near already urbanizing 

areas, most coneflower populations near 

those areas are protected in preserves. 

The decline or disappearance of some 

smooth coneflower populations across 

the range of the species has been 

documented in Natural Heritage 

Program records and is attributed to 

habitat loss, primarily due to lack of 

proper management. There is no 

indication that management is more or 

less likely to be implemented in any 

particular area within the range; thus, 

no specific population appears to be 

more subject to stochastic events than 

others. Further, encroachment by 

invasive species, which is most 

prevalent in disturbed areas, such as 

highway ROWs or utility corridors, 

occurs throughout the smooth 

coneflower’s range. Accordingly, we 

found no concentration of threats in any 

portion of the smooth coneflower’s 

range at a biologically meaningful scale. 

Thus, there are no portions of the 

species’ range where the species has a 

different status from its rangewide 

status. Therefore, it is unnecessary for 

us to determine whether any portion of 

the species’ range is significant. This is 

consistent with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. Department of the 

Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 

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

and Center for Biological Diversity v. 

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

Ariz. 2017). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that smooth coneflower meets 

the Act’s definition of a threatened 

species. Therefore, we are reclassifying 

smooth coneflower from an endangered 

species to a threatened species in 

accordance with sections 3(20) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

The Act encourages cooperation with 

the States and requires that recovery 

actions be implemented for all listed 

species. The protections required by 

Federal agencies and the prohibitions 

against certain activities are discussed, 

in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. As discussed 

earlier in this document, section 4(f) of 

the Act requires the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, 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 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. All planning documents 

can be found on our website (https://

www.fws.gov/program/endangeredspecies). 

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. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

consultation as described in the 

preceding paragraph include 

management and any other landscapealtering activities on Federal lands 

administered by the USFS; issuance of 

section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.) permits by the USACE; and 

construction and maintenance of roads 

or highways by the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a final listing on proposed 

and ongoing activities within the range 

of a listed species. The discussion below 

regarding protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act complies with 

our policy. 

II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) 

of the Act 

The Act allows the Secretary to 

promulgate protective regulations for 

threatened species pursuant to section 

4(d). Because we are reclassifying this 

species as a threatened species, the 

prohibitions in section 9 would not 

apply directly. We are, therefore, 

enacting a set of regulations to provide 

for the conservation of the species in 

accordance with section 4(d) of Act, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40113 

which also authorizes us to apply any 

of the prohibitions in section 9 to a 

threatened species. The rule includes a 

description of the kinds of activities that 

would or would not constitute a 

violation. 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as she deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of species listed as 

threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

noted that statutory language like 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates 

a large degree of deference to the agency 

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

(1988)). Conservation is defined in the 

Act to mean the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary. Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case 

of plants. Thus, the combination of the 

two sentences of section 4(d) provides 

the Secretary with wide latitude of 

discretion to select and promulgate 

appropriate regulations tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species. The second sentence 

grants particularly broad discretion to 

the Service when adopting the 

prohibitions under section 9. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld rules developed under section 

4(d) as a valid exercise of agency 

authority where they prohibited take of 

threatened wildlife or include a limited 

taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. 

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

Washington Environmental Council v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 

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

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

rules that do not address all of the 

threats a species faces (see State of 

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

Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 

history when the Act was initially 

enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the 

threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to [her] with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. 

[She] may, for example, permit taking, 

but not importation of such species, or 

[she] may choose to forbid both taking 

and importation but allow the 

transportation of such species’’ (H.R. 

Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 

1973). 

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule 

Exercising the Secretary’s authority 

under section 4(d) of the Act, we have 

developed a rule that is designed to 

address the smooth coneflower’s 

specific threats and conservation needs. 

Although the statute does not require 

the Service to make a ‘‘necessary and 

advisable’’ finding with respect to the 

adoption of specific prohibitions under 

section 9, we find that this rule as a 

whole satisfies the requirement in 

section 4(d) of the Act to issue 

regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of smooth coneflower. 

As discussed above under Summary 

of Biological Condition and Threats, we 

have concluded that smooth coneflower 

is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

primarily due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

(specifically due to fire suppression and 

subsequent ecological succession and 

development, and encroachment from 

invasive species). Specifically, a number 

of activities have the potential to affect 

smooth coneflower, including land 

clearing for development, fire 

suppression, and herbicide application 

to highway and utility ROWs. Extending 

the Act’s section 9 prohibitions for 

plants, including making it unlawful to 

remove, damage, or destroy smooth 

coneflowers, will provide for 

conservation of the species by helping 

to preserve remaining populations, 

slowing their rate of potential decline, 

and decreasing synergistic, negative 

effects from other stressors. Prohibiting 

import and export, transportation, and 

commerce of smooth coneflower limits 

unauthorized propagation and 

distribution, which prevents potential 

hybridization with other species of 

Echinacea and subsequent inbreeding 

depression. As a whole, the 4(d) rule 

helps in the efforts to recover the 

species. 

The provisions of this 4(d) rule 

promote conservation of smooth 

coneflower by encouraging management 

of the landscape in ways that meet both 

land management considerations and 

the conservation needs of smooth 

coneflower, specifically by providing 

exceptions for State agency conservation 

actions, scientific permits for research, 

and use of cultivated-origin seeds for 

education. The provisions of this rule 

are one of many tools that we will use 

to promote the conservation of smooth 

coneflower. 

This 4(d) rule provides for the 

conservation of smooth coneflower by 

extending the prohibitions of section 

9(a)(2), prohibiting the following 

activities, except as otherwise 

authorized or permitted: Import or 

export; removing and reducing to 

possession smooth coneflower from 

areas under Federal jurisdiction; 

maliciously damaging or destroying the 

species on any area under Federal 

jurisdiction; removing, cutting, digging 

up, or damaging or destroying the 

species on any other area in knowing 

violation of any law or regulation of any 

State or in the course of any violation 

of a State criminal trespass law; 

delivering, receiving, carrying, 

transporting, or shipping the species in 

interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of a commercial activity; and 

selling or offering for sale the species in 

interstate or foreign commerce. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

involving threatened plants under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened 

plants, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance propagation or 

survival, for economic hardship, for 

botanical or horticultural exhibition, for 

educational purposes, or for other 

activities consistent with the purposes 

and policy of the Act. Additional 

statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions are found in sections 9 and 

10 of the Act. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship with our State natural 

resource agency partners in contributing 

to conservation of listed species. State 

agencies often possess scientific data 

and valuable expertise on the status and 

distribution of endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species of wildlife and 

plants. State agencies, because of their 

authorities and their close working 

relationships with local governments 

and landowners, are in a unique 

position to assist us in implementing all 

aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 

6 of the Act provides that we shall 

cooperate to the maximum extent 

practicable with the States in carrying 

out programs authorized by the Act. 

Therefore, as set forth at 50 CFR 

17.71(b), any employee or agent of the 

Service or of a State conservation 

agency that is operating a conservation 

program pursuant to the terms of a 

cooperative agreement with the Service 

in accordance with section 6(c) of the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40114 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Act, who is designated by that agency 

for such purposes, will be allowed, 

when acting in the course of official 

duties, to remove and reduce to 

possession from areas under Federal 

jurisdiction smooth coneflowers that are 

covered by an approved cooperative 

agreement to carry out conservation 

programs. In addition, in accordance 

with 50 CFR 17.61(c)(2) through (4), any 

employee or agent of the Service, any 

other Federal land management agency, 

or a State conservation agency, who is 

designated by that agency for such 

purposes, will be able to, when acting 

in the course of official duties, remove 

and reduce to possession smooth 

coneflower from areas under Federal 

jurisdiction without a permit to care for 

a damaged or diseased specimen, or to 

salvage or dispose of a dead specimen. 

We also recognize the beneficial and 

educational aspects of activities with 

seeds of cultivated plants, which 

generally enhance the propagation of 

the species. We intend to monitor the 

interstate and foreign commerce and the 

import and export of these specimens in 

a manner that will not inhibit such 

activities, providing the activities do not 

represent a threat to the survival of the 

species in the wild. In this regard, we 

have created an exception from the 

prohibitions for seeds of cultivated 

specimens, provided that a statement 

that the seeds are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ 

accompanies the seeds or their 

container (e.g., the seeds could be 

moved across State lines or between 

territories for purposes of seed banking 

or use for outplanting without 

additional regulations). 

Nothing in this 4(d) rule changes in 

any way the recovery planning 

provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the 

consultation requirements under section 

7 of the Act, or our ability to enter into 

partnerships for the management and 

protection of smooth coneflower. 

However, interagency cooperation may 

be further streamlined through planned 

programmatic consultations for the 

species between us and other Federal 

agencies, where appropriate. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

need not be prepared in connection 

with determining and implementing a 

species’ listing status under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that there are no 

Tribal interests affected by this rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team and the Raleigh Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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 for ‘‘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; 87 FR [insert Federal 

Register page where the document begins], 

7/6/2022; 50 CFR 17.73(f).4d

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.73 by adding 

paragraphs (c) through (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.73 Special rules—flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

(c)–(e) [Reserved] 

(f) Echinacea laevigata (smooth 

coneflower)—(1) Prohibitions. The 

following prohibitions that apply to 

endangered plants also apply to 

Echinacea laevigata. Except as provided 

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

is unlawful for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit 

another to commit, or cause to be 

committed, any of the following acts in 

regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40115 

(iii) Maliciously damage or destroy 

the species on any areas under Federal 

jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or 

damage or destroy the species on any 

other area in knowing violation of any 

State law or regulation or in the course 

of any violation of a State criminal 

trespass law, as set forth at section 

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

(iv) Engage in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, as set forth at § 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 

August 5, 2022 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. 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14291 Filed 7–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BE82 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for the Canoe Creek Clubshell 

and Designation of Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

that the Canoe Creek clubshell 

(Pleurobema athearni), a freshwater 

mussel species endemic to a single 

watershed in north-central Alabama, is 

an endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended. We also designate critical 

habitat for the species under the Act. In 

total, approximately 58.5 river 

kilometers (36.3 river miles) in St. Clair 

and Etowah Counties, Alabama, fall 

within the boundaries of the critical 

habitat designation. This rule extends 

the Act’s protections to the species and 

its designated critical habitat. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 5, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078. 

The coordinates or plot points from 

which the maps are generated are 

included in the decision file for this 

critical habitat designation and are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078 

and on the Service’s website at https:// 

www.fws.gov/office/alabama-ecologicalservices. Any additional tools or 

supporting information that we 

developed for the critical habitat 

designation will also be available at the 

Service’s website set out above and may 

also be included in the preamble and at 

https://www.regulations.gov, or both. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William J. Pearson, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama 

Ecological Services Field Office, 1208 

Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; 

telephone 251–441–5181. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants listing if it 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or a threatened species (likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range). We have 

determined that the Canoe Creek 

clubshell meets the definition of an 

endangered species; therefore, we are 

listing it as such. To the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable, we 

must designate critical habitat for any 

species that we determine to be an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. Listing a species and 

designation of critical habitat can be 

completed only by issuing a rule. 

What this document does. This rule 

lists the Canoe Creek clubshell 

(Pleurobema athearni) as an endangered 

species and designates critical habitat 

for this species under the Endangered 

Species Act. We are designating critical 

habitat in 2 units totaling approximately 

58.5 river kilometers (km) (36.3 river 

miles (mi)) in St. Clair and Etowah 

Counties, Alabama. 

The basis for our action. Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may 

determine that a species is an 

endangered or threatened species based 

on any of five factors: (A) The present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We have determined that 

habitat degradation through changes in 

water quality and quantity (Factor A), 

increased sedimentation (Factor A), and 

climate events (Factor E) are the primary 

threats to the species. 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with listing to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. Section 

3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 

as (i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protections; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Economic analysis. In accordance 

with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

prepared an economic analysis of the 

impacts of designating critical habitat. 

We made the draft economic analysis 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1