Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Tennessee Purple Coneflower From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 48896-48914 [2010-19742]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 155 (Thursday, August 12, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48896-48914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19742]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059; 92220-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018-AW26


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the 
Tennessee Purple Coneflower From the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring 
plan.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 
propose to remove the plant Echinacea tennesseensis (Tennessee purple 
coneflower) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
due to recovery. This action is based on a thorough review of the best 
available scientific and commercial data, which indicate that this 
species' status has improved to the point that E. tennesseensis is not 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. Our review of the status of 
this species shows that all of the threats to the species have been 
eliminated or significantly reduced, adequate regulatory mechanisms 
exist, and populations are stable. We also announce the availability of 
the draft post-delisting monitoring plan. This proposed rule completes 
the 5-year status review for the species, initiated on September 21, 
2007.

DATES: To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this 
proposed rule, they must be received or postmarked on or before October 
12, 2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at 
the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, by 
September 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Search for docket number FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059 and then follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept comments by e-mail or fax. We will post all 
comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we 
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public 
Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville Field Office, 446 Neal Street, 
Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone (931) 528-6481. Individuals who are 
hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Information 
Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or other interested parties concerning 
this proposed rule. The comments that will be most useful and likely to 
influence our decisions are those that are supported by data or peer-
reviewed studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, 
applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific 
as possible and explain the

[[Page 48897]]

basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with 
your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial 
data you reference or provide. In particular, we seek comments 
concerning the following:
    (1) Biological data concerning Echinacea tennesseensis.
    (2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to 
Echinacea tennesseensis, including but not limited to:
    (a) Whether or not climate change is a threat to the species;
    (b) What regional climate change models are available, and whether 
they are reliable and credible to use as step-down models for assessing 
the effect of climate change on the species and its habitat; and
    (c) The extent of Federal and State protection and management that 
would be provided to Echinacea tennesseensis as a delisted species.
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, 
population size, and trends of Echinacea tennesseensis, including the 
locations of any additional populations of this species.
    (4) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
Echinacea tennesseensis colonies that may impact or benefit the 
species.
    (5) The draft post-delisting monitoring plan.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that a 
determination as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take 
into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from 
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and 
addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section. If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment--including any personal 
identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. Please note 
that comments posted to this Web site are not immediately viewable. 
When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, 
the comment will not be publicly viewable until we post it, which might 
not occur until several days after submission.
    If you mail or hand-deliver a hardcopy comment that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the 
electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we 
receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions 
on https://www.regulations.gov.
    In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as 
supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule will be 
available for public inspection in two ways:
    (1) You can view them on https://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter 
Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2010-0059, which is the docket 
number for this rulemaking.
    (2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to 
view the comments and materials in person at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Services' Cookeville Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public 
hearings on this proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section by the date shown in the DATES section of 
this document. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if 
any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those 
hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register at least 15 days before the first hearing.

Previous Federal Actions

    Section 12 of the Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian 
Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be 
endangered, threatened, or extinct. On July 1, 1975, the Service 
published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27873) accepting the 
Smithsonian report as a petition to list taxa named therein under 
section 4(c)(2) [now 4(b)(3)] of the Act and announcing our intention 
to review the status of those plants. Echinacea tennesseensis was 
included in that report (40 FR 27880). Tennessee purple coneflower is 
the common name for E. tennesseensis; however, we will primarily use 
the scientific name of this species throughout this proposed rule to 
clarify taxonomic issues or the legal status of the plant.
    On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (41 FR 24524) to designate approximately 1,700 vascular plant 
species, including Echinacea tennesseensis, as endangered under section 
4 of the Act. On June 6, 1979, we published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (44 FR 32604) designating E. tennesseensis as endangered. The 
final rule identified the following threats to E. tennesseensis: loss 
of habitat due to residential and recreational development; collection 
of the species for commercial or recreational purposes; grazing; no 
State law protecting rare plants in Tennessee; and succession of cedar 
glade communities in which E. tennesseensis occurred. On February 14, 
1983, we published the Tennessee Coneflower Recovery Plan (Service 
1983, 41 pp.), a revision of which we published on November 14, 1989 
(Service 1989, 30 pp.). On September 21, 2007, we initiated a 5-year 
status review of this species (72 FR 54057). This rule, once finalized, 
will complete the status review.
    For additional details on previous Federal actions, see discussion 
under the Recovery Plan and Recovery Plan Implementation sections 
below.

Species Information

    A member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae), Echinacea 
tennesseensis is a perennial herb with a long and fusiform (i.e., 
thickened toward the middle and tapered towards either end), blackened 
root. In late summer, the species bears showy purple flower heads on 
one-to-many hairy branches. Linear to lance-shaped leaves up to 20 
centimeters (cm; 8 inches (in.)) long and 1.5 cm (0.6 in.) wide arise 
from the base of E. tennesseensis and are beset with coarse hairs, 
especially along the

[[Page 48898]]

margins. The ray flowers (i.e., petals surrounding the darker purple 
flowers of the central disc) are pink to purple and spread horizontally 
or arch slightly forward from the disc to a length of 2-4 cm (0.8-1.8 
in.).
    The following description of this species' life history is 
summarized from Hemmerly (1986, pp. 193-195): seeds are shed from 
plants during fall and winter and begin germinating in early March of 
the following year, producing numerous seedlings by late March. Most of 
the seedling growth occurs during the first 6 or 7 weeks of the first 
year, during which plants will grow to a height of up to 2-3 cm (0.8-
1.2 in). Plants remain in a rosette stage and root length increases 
rapidly during these weeks. Flowering stems and seeds are produced on 
some plants by the end of the second season. Individuals of Echinacea 
tennesseensis can live up to at least 6 years, but the maximum lifespan 
is probably much longer (Baskauf 1993, p. 37).
    Echinacea tennesseensis was first collected in 1878 in Rutherford 
County, Tennessee, by Dr. A. Gattinger and later described by Beadle 
(1898, p. 359) as Brauneria tennesseensis on the basis of specimens 
collected by H. Eggert in 1897 from ``a dry, gravelly hill'' near the 
town of LaVergne. Fernald (1900, pp. 86-87) did not accept Beadle's 
identification of B. tennesseensis as a distinct species, instead he 
merged it with the more widespread E. angustifolia. This treatment was 
upheld by many taxonomists until McGregor (1968, pp. 139-141) 
classified the taxon as E. tennesseensis (Beadle) Small, based on 
examination of materials from collections discussed above and from 
collections by R. McVaugh in 1936. As McGregor (1968, p. 141) was 
unable to locate any plants while conducting searches during the months 
of June through August, 1959-1961, he concluded that the species was 
very rare or possibly extinct in his monograph of the genus Echinacea. 
The species went unnoticed until its rediscovery in a cedar glade in 
Davidson County, Tennessee as reported by Baskin et al. (1968, p. 70), 
and subsequently in Wilson County, Tennessee by Quarterman and Hemmerly 
(1971, pp. 304-305), who also noted that the area believed to be the 
type locality (Rutherford County) for the species was destroyed by the 
construction of a trailer park.
    More recently, Binns et al. (2002, pp. 610-632) revised the 
taxonomy of the genus Echinacea and in doing so reduced E. 
tennesseensis to one of five varieties of E. pallida. Their taxonomic 
treatment considers E. pallida var. tennesseensis (Beadle) Small to be 
a synonym of their E. tennesseensis (Beadle) Binns, B. R. Baum, & 
Arnason, comb. nov. (Binns et al. 2002, p. 629). However, this has not 
been unanimously accepted among plant taxonomists (Estes 2008, pers. 
com.; Weakley 2008, pp. 139-140). Kim et al. (2004) examined the 
genetic diversity of Echinacea species and their results conflicted 
with the division of the genus by Binns et al. (2002, pp. 617-632) into 
two subgenera, Echinacea and Pallida, one of which--Echinacea--included 
only E. purpurea. Mechanda et al. (2004, p. 481) concluded that their 
analysis of genetic diversity within Echinacea only supported 
recognition of one of the five varieties of E. pallida that Binns et 
al. (2002, pp. 626-629) described, namely E. pallida var. 
tennesseensis. While Mechanda et al. (2004, p. 481) would also reduce 
E. tennesseensis from specific to varietal status, the conflicting 
results between these two investigations point to a lack of consensus 
regarding the appropriate taxonomic rank of taxa within the genus 
Echinacea. Because clear acceptance of the taxonomic revision by Binns 
et al. (2002, pp. 610-632) is lacking, and Flora of North America 
(https://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250066491, accessed December 3, 2009) and a flora under development 
by Weakley (2008, pp. 139-140) both retain specific status for E. 
tennesseensis, we will continue to recognize E. tennesseensis as a 
species during this rulemaking process until a change in the best 
available scientific data indicates we should do otherwise.
    Echinacea tennesseensis is restricted to limestone barrens and 
cedar glades of the Central Basin, Interior Low Plateau Physiographic 
Province, in Davidson, Rutherford, and Wilson Counties in Tennessee 
(Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) 2006, p. 
2). These middle Tennessee habitats typically occur on thin plates of 
Lebanon limestone that are more or less horizontally bedded, though 
interrupted by vertical fissures in which sinkholes may be readily 
formed (Quarterman 1986, p. 124). Somers et al. (1986, pp. 180-189) 
described seven plant community types from their study of 10 cedar 
glades in middle Tennessee. They divided those communities into xeric 
(dry) communities, which occurred in locations with no soil or soil 
depth less than 5 cm (2 in.), and subxeric (moderately dry) communities 
that occurred on soils deeper than 5 cm (2 in.) (Somers et al. 1986, p. 
186). Quarterman (1986, p. 124) noted that soil depths greater than 20 
cm (8 in.) in the vicinity of cedar glades tend to support plant 
communities dominated by eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and 
other woody species. Somers et al. (1986, p. 191) found E. 
tennesseensis in four of the community types they classified, but could 
not determine the fidelity of the species to a particular community 
type because it only occurred on three of the glades they studied and 
was infrequently encountered in plots within those sites. The 
communities where E. tennesseensis occurred spanned two xeric and two 
subxeric types. The xeric community types, named for the dominant 
species that either alone or combined constituted greater than 50 
percent cover, were the (1) Nostoc commune (blue-green algae)-
Sporobolus vaginiflorus (poverty dropseed) and (2) Dalea gattingeri 
(purpletassels) communities. The subxeric types were the (1) S. 
vaginiflorus and (2) Pleurochaete squarrosa (square pleurochaete moss) 
communities. Mean soil depths across these communities ranged from 4.1 
to 7.7 cm (1.6 to 3.0 in.) (Somers et al. 1986, pp. 186-188).
    Echinacea tennesseensis was only known from three locations, one 
each in Davidson, Rutherford, and Wilson Counties, when the species was 
listed as endangered in 1979 (44 FR 32604; June 6, 1979). In 1989, when 
the species' recovery plan was completed, there were five extant 
populations ranging in size from approximately 3,700 to 89,000 plants 
and consisting of one to three colonies each (Clebsch 1988, p. 14; 
Service 1989, p. 2). The recovery plan defined a population as a group 
of colonies in which the probability of gene exchange through cross 
pollination is high, and a colony was defined as all E. tennesseensis 
plants found at a single site that are separated from other plants 
within the population by unsuitable habitat (Service 1989, p. 1). While 
analysis of genetic variability within E. tennesseensis did not reveal 
high levels of differentiation among these populations (Baskauf et al. 
1994, p. 186), recovery efforts have been implemented and tracked with 
respect to these geographically defined populations. The geographic 
distribution of these populations and their colonies was updated in a 
TDEC (1996, Appendix I) status survey to include all known colonies at 
that time, including those from a sixth population introduced into 
glades at the Stones River National Battlefield in Rutherford County. 
For the purposes of this proposed rule, we have followed these 
population delineations and have assigned most colonies that have been

[[Page 48899]]

discovered since the status survey was completed to the geographically 
closest population.
    The six Echinacea tennesseensis populations occur within an 
approximately 400 square kilometer (km\2\; 154 square miles (mi\2\)) 
area and include between 2 and 11 colonies each. Surveys conducted by 
TDEC and the Service in 2005 confirmed the presence of E. tennesseensis 
at 36 colonies, and the number of flowering stems in each was counted 
(TDEC 2006, pp. 4-5). Fifteen of these are natural colonies; the 
remaining 21 have been established through introductions for the 
purpose of recovering E. tennesseensis (TDEC 1991, pp. 3-7; TDEC 1996, 
Appendix I; Lincicome 2008, pers. com.). Three of the 21 introduced 
colonies constitute the sixth population that was established at a 
Designated State Natural Area (DSNA) in the Stones River National 
Battlefield (TDEC 1996, Appendix I).
    We do not consider 2 of the 21 introduced colonies as contributing 
to recovery and do not include them in our analysis of the current 
status of E. tennesseensis. One of these two excluded colonies is 
located in Marshall County, well outside of the known range of the 
species. The other excluded colony is located in Rutherford County, and 
is believed to contain hybrids with E. simulata (see the Recovery Plan 
Implementation section below for additional information). Excluding 
these 2 colonies brings the number of introduced colonies considered 
for recovery to 19 and the total number of colonies to 34. However, an 
additional introduced colony that was not monitored during 2005, but 
for which TDEC maintains an element occurrence record, brings the 
number of introduced colonies we consider here to 20 and the total 
number of colonies considered for this proposed rulemaking to 35.
    In reviewing the 2006 TDEC report summarizing results of the 2005 
surveys, we discovered computational errors in the reported estimates 
of flowering adults and total individuals based on the number of 
flowering stems counted (TDEC 2006, pp. 4-5, Table 2). We reanalyzed 
those data to provide revised estimates after consulting with TDEC, but 
cite their 2006 report throughout this proposed rule because it is the 
source of data for flowering stem counts that were used to estimate 
colony sizes. To generate revised estimates of the number of flowering 
adults and total individuals, we used the number of flowering stems 
reported in Table 2 of TDEC (2006, pp. 4-5). Based on analyses by TDEC 
(2006, pp. 3-4) to estimate ratios of flowering stems to numbers of 
individual flowering adults and juveniles (discussed in further detail 
under number 5 in the Recovery Plan Implementation section below), we 
then (1) divided the number of flowering stems by 1.75 to estimate the 
number of flowering adults, and (2) multiplied the estimated number of 
adults by 14 to estimate the number of juvenile plants. The estimated 
total number of individuals is the sum of the number of flowering 
adults and number of juvenile plants. The revised estimates of existing 
E. tennesseensis populations and colonies, shown in Table 1 below, 
include information on whether each colony was natural or introduced. 
Summarizing the data in Table 1, natural colonies, or those not known 
to have been established through introductions, included 83,895 
flowering stems in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 6), which translated to an 
estimated 47,941 individual flowering plants and 719,101 total 
individuals, including juveniles (i.e., non-flowering plants with 
leaves greater than 2 cm (0.78 in) length) and seedlings (i.e., plants 
with leaves less than 2 cm (0.78 in)). Introduced colonies, excluding 
the two colonies we do not consider as contributing to recovery (as 
mentioned above), accounted for 23,454 flowering stems, and an 
estimated 13,402 individual flowering plants and 201,178 total 
individuals (TDEC 2006, p. 6). Natural colonies constituted 
approximately 78 percent of the total individuals, and introduced 
colonies constituted approximately 22 percent. In this proposed rule, 
we use the colony numbers assigned by TDEC (1996, Appendix I) and have 
assigned additional colony numbers sequentially to those colonies that 
have been discovered since that report was issued. In some instances, 
there are gaps evident in the sequence of colony numbers discussed, 
representing colonies that have been documented in the past but that 
were either extirpated or of unknown status at the time of this 
proposed rule.

Recovery Plan

    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. The Act directs that, to the 
maximum extent practicable, we incorporate into each plan:
    (1) Site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve 
the plan's goals for conservation and survival of the species;
    (2) 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 Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List); and
    (3) Estimates of the time required and cost to carry out the plan's 
goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.
    However, revisions to the List (adding, removing, or reclassifying 
a species) must reflect determinations made in accordance with sections 
4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the 
Secretary determine whether a species is endangered or threatened (or 
not) because of one or more of five threat factors. Therefore, recovery 
criteria must indicate when a species is no longer endangered or 
threatened by any of the five factors. In other words, objective, 
measurable criteria, or recovery criteria, contained in recovery plans 
must indicate when an analysis of the five threat factors under 4(a)(1) 
would result in a determination that a species is no longer endangered 
or threatened. Section 4(b) requires the determination made under 
section 4(a)(1) as to whether a species is endangered or threatened 
because of one or more of the five factors be based on the best 
available science.
    Thus, while recovery plans are intended to provide guidance to the 
Service, States, and other partners on methods of eliminating or 
ameliorating threats to listed species and on criteria that may be used 
to determine when recovery is achieved, recovery plans are not 
regulatory documents and cannot substitute for the determinations and 
promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1). 
Determinations to remove a species from the list made under section 
4(a)(1) must be based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available at the time of the determination, regardless of whether these 
data differ from the recovery plan.
    In the course of implementing conservation actions for a species, 
new information is often gained that requires recovery efforts to be 
modified accordingly. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of 
a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being 
fully met. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded 
while other criteria may not have been accomplished, yet the Service 
may judge that, overall, the threats have been minimized sufficiently, 
and the species is robust enough, to reclassify the species from 
endangered to threatened or perhaps delist the species.

[[Page 48900]]

In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that 
were not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These 
opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery 
plan.
    Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not 
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information 
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing 
recovery of the species. Overall, recovery of species is a dynamic 
process requiring adaptive management--planning, implementing, and 
evaluating the degree of recovery of a species that may, or may not, 
fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    Thus, while the recovery plan provides important guidance on the 
direction and strategy for recovery, and indicates when a rulemaking 
process may be initiated, the determination to remove a species from 
the List is ultimately based on an analysis of whether a species is no 
longer endangered or threatened. The following discussion provides a 
brief review of recovery planning for Echinacea tennesseensis, as well 
as an analysis of the recovery criteria and goals as they relate to 
evaluating the status of the species.
    The Service first approved the Tennessee Coneflower Recovery Plan 
on February 14, 1983 (Service 1983, 41 pp.) and revised it on November 
14, 1989 (Service 1989, 30 pp.). The recovery plan includes the 
following delisting criterion: Echinacea tennesseensis will be 
considered recovered when there are at least five secure wild 
populations, each with three self-sustaining colonies of at least a 
minimal size. A colony will be considered self-sustaining when there 
are two juvenile plants for every flowering one. Minimal size for each 
colony is 15 percent cover of flowers over 669 square meters (m\2\; 800 
square yards (yd\2\); 7,200 square feet (ft\2\)) of suitable habitat. 
Downlisting (reclassification from endangered to threatened) will be 
considered when each of the five secure wild populations has two 
colonies (Service 1989, p. iii, p. 12).
    Establishing multiple populations during the recovery of endangered 
species serves two important functions:
    (1) Providing redundancy on the landscape to minimize the 
probability that localized stochastic disturbances will threaten the 
entire species, and
    (2) Preserving the genetic structure found within a species by 
maintaining the natural distribution of genetic variation among its 
populations.
    In the case of E. tennesseensis, the need for multiple distinct 
populations to maintain genetic structure is diminished, as Baskauf et 
al. (1994, p. 186) determined that the majority of genetic variability 
within this species is maintained within each population rather than 
distributed among them. These data were not available at the time the 
recovery plan was completed. With respect to redundancy, the current 
number of E. tennesseensis colonies exceeds the total number required 
by the recovery plan for delisting this species, and we believe the 
current distribution of secured colonies among geographically distinct 
populations, which are separated by distances of 1.8 to 9 miles (2.9-
14.5 km), is adequate for minimizing the likelihood that isolated 
stochastic disturbances would threaten the continued survival of this 
species.
    Nonetheless, the criterion set forth in the Recovery Plan for 
delisting Echinacea tennesseensis has been met, as described below. 
Additionally, the level of protection currently afforded to the species 
and its habitat, as well as the current status of threats, are outlined 
below in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section.
    There currently are six geographically defined Echinacea 
tennesseensis populations, including the five described in the recovery 
plan (Service 1989, pp. 3-7) and one introduced population at the 
Stones River National Battlefield (TDEC 1996, Appendix I). There 
currently are 19 colonies of E. tennesseensis that occur entirely or 
mostly on protected lands, with 5 of the populations containing three 
or more colonies each. The Allvan population is the lone exception, as 
only one of its two colonies is secure at this time. The 19 secured 
colonies accounted for an estimated 761,055 individual plants in 2005, 
or approximately 83 percent of the total species' distribution; 
colonies that we do not consider secure accounted for 159,224 
individual plants, or approximately 17 percent of the total species' 
distribution.
    While data on numbers of juvenile plants have not been collected 
from all colonies, monitoring data that have been collected for this 
demographic attribute have typically exceeded the value used in 
defining self-sustaining in the recovery plan-i.e., that there be two 
juvenile plants for every flowering adult in a colony. The average of 
this ratio in natural colonies for a given year of monitoring has 
ranged from 2.5 to 15.6, based on data collected at two to six sites 
per year in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2004 (TDEC 2005, p. 21). Ratios of 
juvenile to flowering adult plants in introduced colonies were first 
estimated during 2006, when the average was found to be 1.08 juveniles 
per adult from a single year of data collected at six introduced 
colonies (TDEC 2007, p. 5). Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 67) witnessed 
considerable variability in mortality rates among stage classes of 
Echinacea tennesseensis measured over the periods 1987-1988 and 1988-
1989, which they attributed to interannual variability in rainfall. 
They determined that seedlings--plants with a cumulative leaf length 
less than 30 cm (11.8 in)--had a high probability (i.e., approximately 
50 percent) of dying during drought conditions that they observed in 
their first year of study (Drew and Clebsch 1995, p. 66). This 
underscores the importance of continuing to monitor numbers of 
flowering adult and juvenile plants in a representative sample of both 
natural and introduced colonies during the post-delisting monitoring 
period.
    The recovery plan further requires that each self-sustaining colony 
consist of 15 percent cover of flowers over 669 m\2\ (800 yd\2\, 7,200 
ft\2\) of suitable habitat, which has not been met in all cases. 
However, we have determined that these percent cover and habitat area 
requirements do not reflect the best available scientific information. 
Drew and Clebsch (1995, pp. 61-67) conducted monitoring during 1987 
through 1989 that established baseline conditions for five of the 
colonies included in the recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 3-7); in 
doing so, they found that percent flower cover of Echinacea 
tennesseensis at these sites ranged from 2 to 12 percent, never 
exceeding the 15 percent threshold stipulated in the recovery plan. 
Total percent cover of all vegetation in the habitats where these 
colonies occur ranged from 42 to 59 percent, meaning that E. 
tennesseensis would have to have constituted 25 to 40 percent of the 
total vegetative cover to have occupied 15 percent flower cover in 
these sites. In contrast, E. tennesseensis only constituted between 5 
and 22 percent of total vegetative cover in plots studied by Drew and 
Clebsch (1995, p. 63). In addition to the fact that the recovery plan 
articulated a requirement that was not met by the reference colonies 
known to exist when the plan was published, a disadvantage of using 
cover estimates for monitoring a rare species such as E. tennesseensis 
is that this value can change during the course of a growing season. 
Density estimates, on the other hand, remain fairly stable once 
seedlings become established following germination (Elzinga et al. 
1998, p. 178). We believe that either total counts of plants in

[[Page 48901]]

various life-history classes within a colony of E. tennesseensis (TDEC 
2005, pp. 3-4, 16-20), or sampling within a known area to generate 
density estimates that can be extrapolated to an entire colony, provide 
superior metrics over cover estimates for monitoring trends in 
populations.
    The recovery plan requirement that each colony occupy 669 m\2\ (800 
yd\2\, 7,200 ft\2\) of suitable habitat does not reflect the range of 
variability observed in several natural colonies that have been 
discovered since the recovery plan was completed. Many of these 
colonies are constrained by the small patches of cedar glade habitat 
where they occur and provide evidence of a wider range of natural 
variability in habitat patch size and colony size in this species that 
was not recognized at the time the recovery plan was published. We 
believe a better measure of the sustainability of both natural and 
introduced colonies is whether they have persisted over time and 
remained stable or increased in number. There currently are 31 out of 
the total 35 colonies that meet this definition, 19 of which are the 
colonies described above as secure.

Recovery Plan Implementation

    The current recovery plan identifies six primary actions necessary 
for recovering Echinacea tennesseensis:
    (1) Continue systematic searches for new colonies;
    (2) Secure each colony;
    (3) Provide a seed source representative of each natural colony;
    (4) Establish new colonies;
    (5) Monitor colonies and conduct management activities, if 
necessary, to maintain the recovered state in each colony; and
    (6) Conduct public education projects.
    Each of these recovery actions has been accomplished. The Service 
entered into a cooperative agreement with TDEC in 1986, as authorized 
by section 6 of the Act, for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened plant species, providing a mechanism for TDEC to acquire 
Federal funds that have supported much of the work described here. The 
State of Tennessee and other partners have provided matching funds in 
order to receive funding from the Service under this agreement.

Recovery Action (1): Continue Systematic Searches for New Colonies

    Eight colonies of Echinacea tennesseensis were known to exist when 
the recovery plan was completed (Service 1989, pp. 3-7). TDEC and its 
contractors conducted searches of cedar glades, identified through the 
use of aerial photography and topographic maps, during the late 1980s 
through 1990 and found five previously unknown colonies of E. 
tennesseensis (TDEC 1991, p.1). Two of these colonies were considered 
additions to the Vine population (TDEC 1991, p. 2), or population 3 as 
described in the recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 4-5). One colony was 
considered an addition to the Mt. View population (TDEC 1991, p. 2), or 
population 1 of the recovery plan (Service 1989, p. 3). A fourth colony 
was considered an addition to the Couchville population (TDEC 1991, p. 
3), or population 5 of the recovery plan (Service 1989, p. 7). The 
fifth colony was smaller, not in a natural habitat setting, and not 
assigned to any of the recovery plan populations in the TDEC report 
(1991, p. 2). Other colonies have been discovered during the course of 
surveys conducted in the cedar glades of middle Tennessee, and the 
number of extant natural colonies now totals 15. A summary of the 
currently known populations and their colonies is provided below in 
Table 1, and in the discussion concerning recovery action number (5). 
Because systematic searches for new colonies have been conducted since 
the completion of the recovery plan and led to the discovery of 
previously unknown colonies, we consider this recovery action to be 
completed.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 48902]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AU10.101


[[Page 48903]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AU10.102


[[Page 48904]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AU10.103


[[Page 48905]]


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Recovery Action (2): Secure Each Colony

    We have assessed the security of each Echinacea tennesseensis 
colony based on observations about threats and defensibility ranks 
reported in the 1996 status survey of this species (TDEC 1996, Appendix 
I) and information in our files concerning protection actions, such as 
construction of fences. We consider a total of 19 colonies, including 
14 of the 16 colonies within DSNAs, to be secure. Colonies 2.4 and 2.7, 
which lie within portions of the extensive Cedars of Lebanon State 
Forest DSNA that have been threatened by past outdoor recreational 
vehicle (ORV) use or that are generally degraded cedar glade habitat 
are not secure. The State of Tennessee's Natural Area Preservation Act 
of 1971 (T.C.A. 11-1701) protects DSNAs from vandalism and forbids 
removal of endangered and threatened species from these areas. TDEC 
monitors these sites and protects them as needed through construction 
of fences or placement of limestone boulders to prevent illegal ORV 
access. We do not consider secure the nine colonies that exist only on 
private land and are not under some form of management agreement. The 
introduced population at the Stones River National Battlefield, 
designated a DSNA in 2003, consists of three secured colonies requiring 
no protective management, as the National Park Service (NPS) controls 
access to the site.
    The recovery plan states that Echinacea tennesseensis will be 
considered recovered when there are ``at least five secure wild 
populations, each with three self-sustaining colonies of at least a 
minimal size.'' There are now 19 secure, self-sustaining colonies of E. 
tennesseensis distributed among six populations (Table 1), fulfilling 
the recovery plan intentions of establishing a sufficient number and 
distribution of secure populations and colonies to remove the risk of 
extinction for this species within the foreseeable future. Therefore, 
we consider this recovery action completed.

Recovery Action (3): Provide a Seed Source Representative of Each 
Natural Colony

    The Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT), an affiliate institution of 
the Centers for Plant Conservation (CPC), collected accessions of seeds 
from each of the six populations currently in existence during 1994 
(Albrecht 2008a, pers. com.). This collection is maintained according 
to CPC guidelines (Albrecht 2008b, pers. com.). Five of the accessions 
taken by MOBOT were provided to the National Center for Genetic 
Resource Preservation (NCGRP) in Fort Collins, Colorado, for long-term 
cold storage. The NCGRP protocol is to test seed viability every 5 
years for accession, and MOBOT also tests seed viability on a periodic 
basis and collects new material for accessions every 10 to 15 years 
(Albrecht 2008b, pers. com.).
    While these accessions do not contain seed from every unique 
colony, they represent each of the populations of Echinacea 
tennesseensis. These accessions provide satisfactory material should 
establishment of colonies from reintroductions or additional 
introductions become necessary in the future, as Baskauf et al. (1994, 
pp.184-186) concluded that there is a low level of genetic 
differentiation among populations of E. tennesseensis and the origin of 
seeds probably is not a critical concern for establishing new 
populations. Therefore, we consider this recovery action completed.

Recovery Action (4): Establish New Colonies

    TDEC (2006, pp. 3-6) reported flowering stem counts for 21 
introduced colonies, but we have eliminated 2 of these from our 
analysis of the current status of Echinacea tennesseensis. One of these 
excluded colonies was introduced into a privately owned glade well 
outside of the known range of the species in Marshall County, consists 
of only a few vegetative stems, and is of doubtful viability. The other 
excluded, introduced colony is located in Rutherford County, 
approximately 7 miles from the nearest E. tennesseensis population, and 
is believed to contain hybrids with E. simulata. The number of 
flowering stems reported from the monitored colonies during 2005 ranged 
from 1 to 6,183.
    All but 1 of the 19 introduced colonies known from 2005 have 
greater than 100 flowering stems, and the estimated total number of 
plants in these colonies ranged from 866 to 52,997 (TDEC 2006, pp. 4-
5). An additional introduced colony (2.9) that was not surveyed during 
2005, but contained thousands of plants in 2006 (Lincicome 2006, pers. 
com.), brings the number of extant introduced colonies to 20. These 20 
colonies were established at various times since 1970 through the 
introductions of seed or transplanted individuals (TDEC 1991, pp. 3-7; 
TDEC 1996, Appendix I; Lincicome 2008, pers. com.), often from an 
undocumented or mixed origin with respect to the source populations 
(Hemmerly 1976, p. 81; Hemmerly 1990, pp. 1-8; TDEC 1991, pp. 4-8; 
Clebsch 1993, pp. 8-9). Numerous nurseries have grown E. tennesseensis 
for the purpose of providing seeds and plants for establishing new 
colonies (TDEC 1991, pp. 3-8). Baskauf et al. (1994, pp. 184-186) 
determined that less than 10 percent of the genetic variability of E. 
tennesseensis is distributed among populations and concluded from this 
low level of differentiation that the origin of seed used in 
establishing new populations probably is not a critical consideration. 
We summarize the distribution of these introduced colonies among E. 
tennesseensis populations in the discussion concerning recovery action 
number (5) below. Because 20 new colonies have been established, we 
consider this recovery action completed.

Recovery Action (5): Monitor Colonies and Conduct Management 
Activities, if Necessary, To Maintain the Recovered State in Each 
Colony

    Drew and Clebsch (1995, pp. 62-67) conducted the first monitoring 
of Echinacea tennesseensis during the summers of 1987 through 1989. 
They produced estimates of density, total numbers of E. tennesseensis, 
the area occupied in the primary colony of each of the five populations 
included in the recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 3-7), and information 
on the demographic structure of these populations. TDEC monitored each 
of these same E. tennesseensis colonies one or more times in the years 
1998, 2000, and 2001, and again in 2004 with some modifications to the 
protocol used in the previous 3 years (TDEC 2005, pp. 3-5). TDEC used 
monitoring data collected during 2004 (TDEC 2005, pp. 16-21) to 
establish that (1) the total number of adult plants in a colony could 
be estimated by dividing the number of flowering stems by 1.75, and (2) 
the number of juveniles and seedlings combined could be estimated by 
multiplying the estimated number of adults by 14. These relationships 
were established using only data from natural populations, so they 
might not accurately represent ratios among life-history classes in 
introduced populations. TDEC (2007, pp. 2-7) reported summary data for 
monitoring plots in four introduced colonies that were sampled during 
2006, but the data have not been analyzed to establish relationships 
for estimating numbers of adults, juveniles, and seedlings from 
flowering stem counts. The average ratio of juveniles to flowering 
adults estimated from the 2004 monitoring was the highest ever 
recorded; however, this ratio provided the best data available for 
estimating overall colony sizes in

[[Page 48906]]

combination with flowering stem counts that were conducted in 2005 at 
all but one colony (TDEC 2006, pp. 2-5).
    Because it is not possible to conduct intensive monitoring of 
multiple stage classes of Echinacea tennesseensis at all colonies in a 
single year, TDEC and the Service conducted flowering stem censuses of 
all known E. tennesseensis colonies in 2005 in order to derive 
population estimates using the approach described above. While the 
total stem estimates provided by TDEC (2006, pp. 4-5) and Drew and 
Clebsch (1995, pp. 62-67) cannot be statistically compared, they 
provide a basis for examining long-term persistence and apparent 
stability in the sizes of the colonies included in the recovery plan 
from observations made 16 years apart.
    The Mount View population (number 1 in the recovery plan) consisted 
of a single known colony when the recovery plan was completed (Service 
1989, p. 3). This population now includes two more colonies, one 
introduced, in addition to the original colony 1.1, which is located in 
Mount View DSNA. These three colonies are located within an 
approximately 2.5 km\2\ (1 mi\2\) area in Davidson County. In 1987, 
Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated the size of the population at 
colony 1.1 to be 12,000 plants occupying an area of 830 m\2\ (8,934 
ft\2\). Based on number of flowering stems reported by TDEC (2006, p. 
4) for this colony in 2005, there were an estimated 46,543 plants. 
Colony 1.2 was discovered on private land in 1990 (TDEC 1996, Appendix 
I, p. III), and Clebsch (1993, p. 18) estimated there were 9,057 plants 
occupying an area of 682 m\2\ (7,341 ft\2\) in 1993. The colony on 
private land was bulldozed in 1999. Colony 1.2 now consists of plants 
introduced onto adjacent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) lands to 
provide long-term protection (TDEC 2003, p. 2). TDEC (2006, p. 4) 
estimated there were 2,304 plants at colony 1.2 in 2005. TDEC (2006, p. 
5) reported 5,109 plants at colony 1.4. This colony was established on 
COE lands, near a public use area at J. Percy Priest Reservoir, using 
plants grown at Tennessee Tech University and was estimated to have 
consisted of 70-80 plants in 1996 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. V). Each 
of the colonies in the Mount View population is considered secure, and 
the available data indicate they are self-sustaining based on the fact 
that they have remained stable or increased over time. While colony 1.2 
was reduced in size when the private lands where it occurred were 
developed, the colony has increased in size since it was relocated onto 
COE lands and a fence was constructed. The total number of plants 
estimated in the Mount View population in 2005 was 53,956.
    The Vesta population (number 2 in the recovery plan) consisted of 
two known colonies when the recovery plan was completed (Service 1989, 
pp. 3-4). This population now consists of eight colonies primarily 
located within an area of approximately 3 km\2\ (1.5 mi\2\) in Wilson 
County. Five of these colonies (2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9) were 
introduced. Colony 2.1 occurs primarily in the Vesta Cedar Glade DSNA, 
with approximately 15 percent lying outside the DSNA on private lands. 
Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated that this colony consisted of 
20,900 plants occupying an area of 1,420 m\2\ (15,285 ft\2\) in 1987. 
TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a total of 66,771 plants at this colony in 
2005. Colonies 2.2 and 2.8 are located entirely within the Vesta Cedar 
Glade DSNA in glade openings that are separated by forested habitat; 
colony 2.2 was reported in the recovery plan to have consisted of 
approximately 5,000 plants occupying an area of approximately 140 m\2\ 
(1,500 ft\2\), in addition to several small clumps that Hemmerly (1976, 
pp. 81) established from seed. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. VII) 
estimated this colony occupied an area of 374 m\2\ (4,026 ft\2\) in 
1996, and estimated a total of 36,634 plants at this colony in 2005 
(TDEC 2006, p. 4). Colony 2.8 is located in a glade opening, 
approximately one-tenth of a mile southwest of colony 2.2, and TDEC 
(2006, p. 5) estimated a total of 18,369 plants at this colony in 2005. 
Colonies 2.3, 2.4, and 2.7 are located in the Cedars of Lebanon State 
Forest DSNA. Colony 2.3 was planted in 1983 with seeds produced in a 
Tennessee Valley Authority greenhouse from Vesta population stock; in 
1996, TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. VIII) observed 50 to 100 plants 
occupying an area of approximately 15 m\2\ (161 ft\2\). TDEC (2006, p. 
5) estimated a total of 1,191 plants here in 2005. Colony 2.4 consisted 
of only 9 plants in 2005, most of which were seedlings (TDEC 2006, p. 
5). Colony 2.7 is a small occurrence believed to have been introduced, 
but for which no reliable data prior to 2005 exist, at which time the 
colony consisted of an estimated 51 plants (TDEC 2006, p. 5). Colony 
2.6 was planted at the entrance to Cedars of Lebanon State Park prior 
to 1982 and was observed in 1996 to include approximately 100 plants 
(TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XI); in 2005 there were an estimated 2,160 
plants (TDEC 2006, p. 5). Colony 2.9 was introduced into a powerline 
right-of-way on private land adjacent to Cedars of Lebanon State Forest 
in 1994 and was brought to TDEC's attention in 2006, at which time 
there were thousands of plants (Lincicome 2006, pers. com.). Of the 
four secure colonies (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.8) in this population, we 
have data to demonstrate that three have remained stable or increased 
over time. We do not have historic data for colony 2.8, but the large 
number of individuals estimated at this colony in 2005 suggests that it 
should be self-sustaining. The total number of plants from the Vesta 
population in secured and self-sustaining colonies was estimated to be 
122,965 plants in 2005. Colonies that we do not consider secure 
accounted for an estimated 2,220 total plants in 2005.
    The Vine population (number 3 in the recovery plan) consisted of 
three known colonies at the time the recovery plan was completed 
(Service 1989, pp. 4-6). This population now consists of 11 colonies 
located within an area of approximately 17 km\2\ (7 mi\2\) in Wilson 
and Rutherford Counties. Three of these colonies (3.7, 3.8, and 3.9) 
were introduced. Approximately two-thirds of the land on which colony 
3.1 is located lies within Vine Cedar Glade DSNA, with the remaining 
one-third on private land. Drew and Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated 
that colony 3.1 consisted of 20,200 plants occupying an area of 800 
m\2\ (8611 ft\2\) in 1987. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XI-XII) reported 
the plants occupied about 760 m\2\ in 1996, and estimated there were 
64,757 plants in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 4). Most of colony 3.2 is located 
in a site acquired by TDEC using a Recovery Land Acquisition Grant and 
matching State funds for addition to the State's natural areas system 
and was estimated in the recovery plan to contain as many as 50,000 
plants (Service 1989, p. 5). Data are summarized here for four element 
occurrences that TDEC tracks and which make up this colony. TDEC (1996, 
Appendix I, p. XIII) estimated a total of 94,537 plants at this colony 
in 1996, occupying an area of 5,889 m\2\ (63,389 ft\2\); in 2005 there 
were an estimated 222,480 plants (TDEC 2006, p. 4). The portions of the 
colony that lie entirely or mostly within the protected lands contained 
an estimated 213,548 of these plants. Colony 3.3 is located in a 
privately owned site that was highly disturbed and consisted of 90 
plants in 1996 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XIV). This colony contained 
an estimated 94 individuals in 2004, and remains a small colony of 
questionable viability today (TDEC 2006, p. 4) because it occurs in 
highly disturbed habitat. Colony 3.4 is located in the Gattinger

[[Page 48907]]

Glade and Barrens DSNA, which is owned by the developers of the 
Nashville Super Speedway who donated a conservation easement to the 
State of Tennessee. Clebsch (1993, p. 18) estimated there were 71,576 
plants at colony 3.4 in 1993. TDEC estimated this colony occupied an 
area of 2,723 m\2\ (23,310 ft\2\) in 1996 and estimated a total of 
111,249 plants at this colony in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 4). While damage 
from off-road vehicle (ORV) use has been historically observed at this 
colony in the past (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XV), it has not been 
noted since the site became a DSNA, and we consider it secure. Colonies 
3.3 through 3.7 occur on private land. Clebsch (1993, p. 18) estimated 
a total of 15,769 plants at colony 3.5 in 1993, occupying an estimated 
area of 669 m\2\ (7,201 ft\2\). TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XVI) 
observed that the density of plants had decreased at this colony in 
1996, while the plants occupied a larger area--an estimated 1,483 m\2\ 
(15,963 ft\2\). TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a total of 21,677 plants at 
this colony in 2005. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XVII) observed about 50 
plants in a 1 m\2\ (11 ft\2\) area at colony 3.6 in 1996, but by 2005 
the colony contained an estimated 1,346 plants. Colony 3.7 was 
established from seeds planted in 1978 and 1979 on private property 
owned by a native plant enthusiast. While many plants were killed 
during drought conditions in 1980, TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. XVIII) 
reported that there were approximately 250 plants at this colony in 
1985 and between 300 and 500 plants in 1996. TDEC (2006, p. 4) 
estimated a total of 14,614 plants at this colony in 2005. Colonies 3.8 
and 3.9 were established from seeds planted into two sites at Cedars of 
Lebanon State Forest in 1990 and 1991. In 1996, TDEC (1996, Appendix I, 
p. XIX) counted 452 plants by surveying eight glades/barrens within the 
larger complex where colony 3.8 is located. TDEC (2006, p. 5) estimated 
a total of 15,969 plants at colony 3.8 in 2005. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, 
p. XX) observed approximately 200 to 300 plants occupying an estimated 
area of 51 m\2\ (549 ft\2\) at colony 3.9 in 1996; in 2005, they 
estimated 23,520 total plants at this colony (TDEC 2006, p. 5). We have 
no data prior to 2005 for colonies 3.10 and 3.11, both of which are 
located on private land. In 2005, TDEC (2006, p. 5) estimated a total 
of 46,063 plants at colony 3.10, which is located near the Nashville 
Super Speedway; colony 3.11 contained an estimated 16,586 plants. These 
data provide evidence that the four secure colonies (i.e., 3.1, 3.2, 
3.4, and 3.9) in this population have remained stable or increased over 
time. The total number of plants from the Vine population in secured 
and self-sustaining colonies was estimated to be 413,074 total plants 
in 2005. Colonies that we do not consider secure accounted for an 
estimated 125,281 total plants in 2005.
    The Allvan population (number 4 in the recovery plan) consisted of 
one known colony (4.1) at the time the recovery plan was completed; two 
other colonies had been extirpated from this population (Service 1989, 
p. 6). This population now consists of two introduced colonies on 
public lands, as colony 4.1 has been lost to disturbance. Drew and 
Clebsch (1995, pp. 62-64) estimated a total of 3,700 plants at colony 
4.1 in 1987, occupying an estimated area of 470 m\2\ (5,059 ft \2\), 
and noted the vegetation at this site differed from the other colonies 
probably as a result of human disturbance. TDEC (1996, Appendix I, p. 
XXI) noted the poor condition of Echinacea tennesseensis plants during 
a site visit to colony 4.1 in 1996, and observed no plants at this 
colony in 2005 (TDEC 2006, p. 4). Colonies 4.2 and 4.3 were established 
from seeds and cultivated juveniles planted on COE lands at J. Percy 
Priest Reservoir in the years 1989 through 1991 (TDEC 1991, pp. 5-6), 
and earthen berms have been constructed at both sites to deter ORV 
traffic and reduce visibility of these colonies. In 1996, colony 4.2 
contained many robust adult plants, but few seedlings and non-flowering 
adults, in an area of 32 m\2\ (344 ft\2\) (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. 
XXII). In 2005, TDEC estimated a total of 52,997 plants at this site. 
This secure colony is located in the Elsie Quarterman Cedar Glade DSNA, 
on COE lands at J. Percy Priest Reservoir, and appears to be self-
sustaining based on the increases observed over time. Colony 4.3 is 
located near the COE Hurricane Public Access Area. In 1996, this colony 
consisted of many robust adult plants and abundant juveniles in an area 
of about 68 m\2\ (732 ft\2\) (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXIII). In 
2005, TDEC (2006, p. 5) estimated a total of 3,300 plants at this 
colony. We believe this colony is self-sustaining; however, it is 
vulnerable to impacts from illegal ORV access as noted above. The total 
number of plants in the one secured and self-sustaining colony in the 
Allvan population contained an estimated 52,997 plants in 2005. The 
colony that we do not consider secure accounted for an estimated 3,300 
total plants in 2005.
    The Couchville population (number 5 in the recovery plan) consisted 
of a single known colony spanning approximately eight privately owned 
tracts when the recovery plan was completed (Service 1989, p. 7). This 
population now consists of three natural and five introduced colonies, 
all located within an approximately 2.8 km\2\ (1.1 mi\2\) area of 
Davidson and Rutherford Counties on lands owned by the State of 
Tennessee (except for colony 5.2, which is on private land). Drew and 
Clebsch (1995, p. 62) estimated a total of 89,300 plants at colony 5.1 
in 1987, occupying an estimated area of 13,860 m\2\ (149,189 ft\2\). 
TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a total of 63,026 plants at this site in 
2005. Colony 5.2 is divided between two privately owned properties. The 
plants in this colony are found in habitats of varying quality, having 
been subjected to past disturbance in some places, and in 1993, 
vegetative plants were observed occupying an area of approximately 
1,823 m\2\ (19,623 ft\2\) (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXV). TDEC (2006, 
p. 4) estimated a total of 3,360 plants at this colony in 2005. 
Colonies 5.3 through 5.6 were established from seed and juveniles 
planted at Long Hunter State Park during 1989 through 1991. TDEC (1996, 
Appendix I, p. XXVI) observed 428 plants at colony 5.3 in 1996, and 
noted that they were spread out over a wide area; in 2005, TDEC (2006, 
p. 4) estimated a total of 13,774 plants at this colony. TDEC (1996, 
Appendix I, p. XXVII) observed that a thriving population containing 
thousands of individuals had become established at colony 5.4 by 1996, 
and that the plants north of the road dividing this colony occupied an 
area of 2,153 m\2\ (23,175 ft\2\); in 2005, TDEC (2006, p. 5) estimated 
a total of 7,397 and 8,460 plants were on the north and south sides of 
the road, respectively. Colony 5.5 consisted of less than 200 total 
plants occupying an estimated area of 53 m\2\ (570 ft\2\) in 1996 (TDEC 
1996, Appendix I, pp. XXVIII-XXIX); in 2005, there were an estimated 
11,143 plants (TDEC 2006, p. 4). Colony 5.6 consisted of approximately 
2,000 plants occupying an area of 51 m\2\ (549 ft\2\) in 1996 (TDEC 
1996, Appendix I, pp. XXIX-XXX); in 2005, there were an estimated 7,251 
plants (TDEC 2006, p. 5). Colony 5.7, for which no historic monitoring 
data are available, is the only naturally occurring colony at Long 
Hunter State Park. TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated that a total of 146 
plants were found here in 2005. Colony 5.8 was established in 2000 at 
the Fate Sanders Barrens DSNA, located on COE lands at J. Percy Priest 
Reservoir. This colony is located approximately 3.5 km (2.8 mi) 
southeast of colony 5.3 in the Couchville population. TDEC planted

[[Page 48908]]

199 plants into two areas at this site in 2000 (Lincicome 2008, pers. 
com.) and estimated a total of 866 plants at this colony in 2005 (TDEC 
2006, p. 5). The data above demonstrate that the secure colonies (5.1, 
5.4, 5.6, and 5.8) in the Couchville population are self-sustaining 
based on stable or increasing numbers over time. In addition, although 
the number of plants in colony 5.1 decreased between 1987 and 2005, we 
conclude that colony 5.1 is secured and self-sustaining for the 
foreseeable future due to the large number of individuals at this site 
persisting over a 20-year period. The total number of plants from the 
Couchville population in secured and self-sustaining colonies was 
estimated to be 87,000 total plants in 2005. Colonies that we do not 
consider secure accounted for an estimated 28,423 total plants in 2005.
    The Stones River National Battlefield population (i.e., population 
6, not included in the recovery plan) consists of three colonies 
established through introductions into an area that is now a DSNA. 
Colony 6.1 was established from seeds introduced by Hemmerly in 1970 
(1976, pp. 10, 81), as part of investigations into seedling survival 
under field conditions. This colony consists of two groupings of 
plants, one of which consisted of 3,880 plants and the other 28 plants 
in 1995; the colony occupied an area of 39 m\2\ (420 ft\2\) in 1996 
(TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXXI). TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated a total 
of 21,729 plants at this colony in 2005. Colonies 6.2 and 6.3 are 
thought to have been established by a neighbor of the battlefield in 
the mid-1990s (Hogan 2008, pers. com.) and consisted of 134 and 401 
plants, respectively, in 1995 (TDEC 1996, Appendix I, p. XXXII). In 
2005, TDEC (2006, p. 4) estimated that there were 2,031 plants at 
colony 6.2 and 7,303 plants at colony 6.3. The total number of plants 
estimated in the Stones River National Battlefield population in 2005 
was 31,063 total plants, all in secured and self-sustaining colonies.
    Numerous partners are involved in managing Echinacea tennesseensis 
populations on their lands. TDEC compared management options at the 
Vesta Cedar Glade DSNA, including mowing, discing, burning, and 
application of selective herbicides for removal of grasses (Clebsch 
1993, pp. 2-8). TDEC and TNC have used grazing of goats, mechanical 
removal, and herbicide applications to control woody species 
encroachment on the margins of cedar glade openings at Mount View Glade 
DSNA (TDEC 2003, pp. 4-9). TDEC applies prescribed fire or mechanical 
removal, as needed and within constraints imposed by locations within 
the urban interface, to control woody species, including the invasive 
exotic privet (Ligustrum sp.), at many DSNAs where E. tennesseensis 
occurs; these include Mount View Glade, Vesta Cedar Glade, Vine Cedar 
Glade, Cedars of Lebanon State Forest Natural Area, Gattinger's Cedar 
Glade and Barrens, Elsie Quarterman Cedar Glade, Fate Sanders Barrens, 
and Couchville Cedar Glade and Barrens. TDEC works with the Tennessee 
Division of Forestry (TDF) to ensure that colonies in the Cedars of 
Lebanon State Forest, which includes three DSNAs, receive necessary 
management and collaborates with TDF to implement all prescribed burns 
that are conducted on DSNAs. TDEC also has cooperated with COE on 
construction of fences or earthen berms around sites at J. Percy Priest 
Reservoir that have been threatened by urban encroachment and illegal 
ORV use. The NPS monitors the introduced population at the Stones River 
National Battlefield and controls woody plant e