[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62826-62833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21954]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0129; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BA93
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended, for Platanthera integrilabia (white fringeless
orchid), a plant species from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
South Carolina, and Tennessee. This rule adds this species to the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
DATES: This rule is effective October 13, 2016.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/cookeville. Comments and
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in
preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours,
at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field
Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone: 931-528-6481;
facsimile: 931-528-7075.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office
(see ADDRESSES, above). Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the white fringeless
orchid (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) for a detailed description of
previous Federal actions concerning this species.
Background
Below, we update and summarize information from the proposed
listing rule for the white fringeless orchid (80 FR 55304; September
15, 2015) on the historical and current distribution of white
fringeless orchid. Please refer to the proposed listing rule for a
summary of other species information, including habitat, biology, and
genetics.
Distribution
In this final rule, we are updating information on the species'
distribution from the September 15, 2015, proposed rule to include two
minor changes, which were brought to our attention following
publication of the proposed listing rule. First, we are changing the
2014 status of the Forsyth County, Georgia, population from extant to
uncertain (Table 1), because flowering plants have not been documented
at this site since 1990 (Richards 2015, pers. comm.). In addition, we
have added Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) to the list of
local, State, or Federal government entities that own or manage lands
where white fringeless orchid is present (Table 2). A revised summary
of the species' distribution follows.
Table 1--County-Level Distribution of Extant and Uncertain Status White Fringeless Orchid Occurrences, Circa
1991 (Shea 1992) and 2014 (ANHP 2014, GDNR 2014, KSNPC 2014, MDWFP 2014, NCDENR 2014, SCDNR 2012, Schotz 2015,
and TDEC 2014)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991 2014
State County ---------------------------------------------------------------
Extant Uncertain Extant Uncertain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................... Calhoun......... .............. .............. 2 ..............
Clay............ .............. 1 1 ..............
Cleburne........ .............. .............. 1 ..............
DeKalb.......... .............. .............. 1 ..............
Jackson......... .............. .............. .............. 1
Marion.......... 1 .............. 1 2
Tuscaloosa...... 1 .............. 1 ..............
Winston......... 1 .............. 1 ..............
Georgia....................... Bartow.......... .............. .............. 1 ..............
Carroll......... 2 .............. 2 ..............
Chattooga....... .............. .............. 1 ..............
Cobb............ 1 .............. .............. ..............
Coweta.......... 1 .............. 1 ..............
Forsyth......... .............. 1 .............. 1
Pickens......... .............. .............. 1 ..............
Rabun........... 1 .............. 1 ..............
Stephens........ 1 .............. 1 ..............
Kentucky...................... Laurel.......... .............. .............. 2 2
McCreary........ 4 .............. 2 1
Pulaski......... 1 1 2 ..............
Whitley......... .............. .............. 1 ..............
Mississippi................... Alcorn.......... .............. .............. .............. 1
Itawamba........ .............. .............. 2 1
Tishomingo...... .............. .............. 1 1
South Carolina................ Greenville...... 1 .............. .............. 1
Tennessee..................... Bledsoe......... .............. 2 2 1
Cumberland...... .............. .............. 1 ..............
Fentress........ .............. .............. 2 ..............
Franklin........ 3 2 5 5
[[Page 62827]]
Grundy.......... 5 5 4 4
Marion.......... 2 .............. 8 ..............
McMinn.......... 1 .............. 1 ..............
Polk............ .............. .............. 1 ..............
Scott........... .............. .............. 1 ..............
Sequatchie...... 2 1 1 1
Van Buren....... 2 .............. 5 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ................ 30 13 57 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Status and Number of White Fringeless Orchid Occurrences on Publicly Owned or Managed Lands
[Note: One site is on privately owned lands that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) leases for
use as a wildlife management area]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership Extant Uncertain Extirpated Historical
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Park Service........................... 3 .............. .............. ..............
U.S. Forest Service............................. 9 3 3 ..............
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.................. 2 .............. .............. ..............
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural .............. 1 .............. ..............
Resources......................................
Georgia Department of Natural Resources......... 2 .............. .............. ..............
Georgia Department of Transportation............ 1 .............. .............. ..............
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission...... 1 .............. .............. 1
Mississippi Department of Fish, Wildlife, and 1 .............. .............. ..............
Parks..........................................
North Carolina Plant Conservation Program....... .............. .............. 1 ..............
South Carolina State Parks...................... .............. 1 .............. ..............
Tennessee Department of Transportation.......... 1 .............. .............. ..............
Tennessee Division of Forestry.................. 7 .............. .............. ..............
Tennessee State Parks........................... 5 1 .............. 1
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency............. 1 .............. 1 ..............
Forsyth County, Georgia......................... .............. 1 .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 33 7 5 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All other information from the ``Distribution'' discussion in the
proposed rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) remains unchanged.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on September 15, 2015 (80 FR 55304),
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by November 16, 2015. We also contacted appropriate Federal
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. On
April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22041), we reopened the comment period for an
additional 60 days, ending June 13, 2016. Newspaper notices inviting
general public comment were published in the Asheville Citizen Times,
Birmingham News, Chattanooga Times Free Press, Greenville News,
Huntsville News, Knoxville News, Lexington Herald-Leader, and Northeast
Mississippi Daily Journal. We did not receive any requests for a public
hearing.
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
white fringeless orchid and its habitat, biological needs, and threats
or general conservation biology of orchids. 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 listing of white fringeless orchid. The peer reviewers generally
concurred with our evaluation and the conclusion we reached regarding
the proposal to list the white fringeless orchid as a threatened
species. One peer reviewer commented on the information on the species'
habitat, biology, and threats, and provided minor updates regarding the
status and distribution of white fringeless orchid in the State of
Georgia. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary
and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
(1) Comment: One reviewer commented on subtle differences in
descriptions of white fringeless orchid habitat that have been recorded
over time, suggesting that descriptions from the 1970s (Luer 1975, p.
186; Shea 1992, p. 19) or later might represent altered conditions, as
compared to the earliest published habitat description (Correll 1941,
pp. 156-157). This reviewer noted that Correll (1941, pp. 156-157) used
the term ``grassy,'' citing an herbarium specimen label, in describing
the habitat, possibly implying the presence of more open conditions in
which a grassy herbaceous community would have been present. This
reviewer speculated that the shaded, forested conditions, discussed in
more contemporary descriptions of white fringeless orchid habitat,
might have
[[Page 62828]]
resulted from land use and regulatory changes (i.e., regulation of
impacts to wetlands) that have favored the development of more densely
stocked, heavily shaded contemporary forest conditions in habitats
where the white fringeless orchid occurs. This reviewer opined that
current habitat conditions where the white fringeless orchid occurs do
not, in many cases, represent the optimal range of habitat variation
for the species. This reviewer also cited short-term positive responses
of white fringeless orchid populations to timber removal in adjacent
uplands, a phenomenon that we discussed in the proposed listing rule,
as evidence of the positive influences of increased light and water
availability, but which diminish with regrowth of even-aged hardwood
stands in the absence of ecological disturbance, such as fire. One
commenter also suggested that fire could be a beneficial management
tool in conservation efforts for the white fringeless orchid.
Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer's observations about
the potential beneficial effects of ecological disturbance, such as
fire, in creating environmental conditions that stimulate population
growth and increased flower production in the white fringeless orchid.
The proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) discusses
short-term positive responses to timber harvesting that have been
observed in some white fringeless orchid populations and notes that
Schotz (2015, p. 4) suggested that fire could play a role in regulating
woody vegetation growth in uplands surrounding white fringeless orchid
habitats. The proposed rule also reports on Hoy's (2012, p. 26)
suggestion that high stem densities, which resulted from succession
following canopy removal, shortened the hydroperiod of wetlands at a
white fringeless orchid site in Kentucky. Evaluating the potential role
of fire or other ecological disturbance in managing habitat for the
white fringeless orchid will be considered during preparation of a
recovery plan (see discussion about recovery plans under the heading
Available Conservation Measures, below) for the species after it is
listed.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the use of herbicides
on industrial and small-scale timber operations appears to be
increasing significantly in the State of Georgia and that we should
include it as a threat of significant concern not only to the white
fringeless orchid but also to the herbaceous plant community of which
it is part, as well as pollinators. The reviewer did not provide
specific data in support of this comment.
Our Response: We agree that increased use of herbicides in timber
operations in or near habitats where the white fringeless orchid occurs
could be detrimental to the species, as well as other herbaceous plants
and pollinators, but we are not aware of specific instances where
adverse effects to the white fringeless orchid have occurred due to
herbicide use in silvicultural operations, nor do we have data
regarding the rates at which herbicides are used in silvicultural
operations presently or in the past. Therefore, we have not added a
discussion of herbicide use in silvicultural operations in the analysis
of factors affecting the white fringeless orchid.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that Atlanta Botanical
Garden (ABG) has developed asymbiotic (in the absence of symbiotic
fungi), aseptic (free from contamination caused by harmful bacteria,
viruses, or other microorganisms) in vitro propagation protocols that
achieve much higher germination rates than the rate (less than 3
percent) observed by other researchers in separate studies of in vitro
and in situ seedling development (Zettler and McInnis 1992, pp. 157-
160; Zettler 1994, p. 65).
Our Response: The Service is aware of the success that ABG has
achieved in propagating the white fringeless orchid; however, we are
not aware of specific rates of seedling germination that we can include
in this rule. Effective propagation protocols could be a valuable tool,
combined with science-based habitat management practices, for
augmenting currently small populations or restoring populations in
sites where the species is no longer extant but suitable habitat
conditions remain. We will consider this information during development
of a recovery plan for the species.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer commented on the discussion in the
proposed listing rule about rates of fruit set in relation to
population size, which cited Zettler et al. (1996, p. 22) and Zettler
and McInnis (1992, p. 160) in suggesting that inbreeding depression
could be a cause for the lower fruit set observed in smaller
populations. The peer reviewer commented that low census numbers of
flowering individuals and highly fragmented or degraded pollinator
networks also could influence the low rates observed in smaller
populations.
Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that other factors
besides inbreeding depression, caused by increased rates of self-
pollination, could contribute to low rates of fruit set in small
populations of the white fringeless orchid. However, we are not aware
of specific data that indicate what those other factors might be.
Federal Agency Comments
(5) Comment: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) commented that
nearly 20 percent of extant white fringeless orchid occurrences are
located in transportation or utility rights-of-way, illustrating that
the species occurs in these settings at a disproportionately high rate
when compared to their overall prevalence on the landscape. The TVA
also commented that the proposed rule highlights the beneficial role
that vegetation maintenance, if properly conducted, can play in
maintaining suitable habitat for the white fringeless orchid and that
herbicide resistance in the species could, in part, explain the
positive response seen in one population following herbicide
application in a TVA right-of-way.
Our Response: We acknowledge that current distribution data
indicate that the white fringeless orchid occurs in transportation or
utility rights-of-way at a disproportionately high rate compared to the
overall prevalence of these features on the landscape. One possible
cause for the disproportionally high numbers of populations known from
rights-of-way is that these areas are surveyed by TVA and other utility
or transportation departments more frequently or intensively than the
forested habitats where most populations are located. It might also be
true that white fringeless orchid populations respond positively to the
well-lit conditions found in rights-of-way, assuming that other threats
related to maintenance or unauthorized use of rights-of-way (e.g., off-
road vehicle use) do not adversely affect the plants or their habitat.
We commend TVA on its efforts to prevent adverse effects to rare
species while conducting vegetation management or infrastructure
maintenance in rights-of-way.
Regarding the comment that herbicide resistance could explain the
species' positive response to selective herbicide application, we are
not aware of any data to support the assertion that the species is
resistant to any registered herbicide products. It is possible that the
selective nature of herbicide application to woody species by TVA or
its contractors, rather than herbicide resistance generally, is
responsible for the positive response seen following one known instance
of potential exposure in a TVA right-of-way. This warrants further
research.
[[Page 62829]]
Comments From States
(6) Comment: The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)
commented that an occurrence located in a transportation right-of-way
in Chattooga County, Georgia, is on lands owned by GDOT. GDOT also
commented on its collaborative efforts with Georgia Power and ABG to
manage the habitat and white fringeless orchid population at this site.
Our Response: We include this information in this rule by adding
GDOT to Table 2, above, which reports the number of occurrences on
publicly owned or managed lands, and by discussing conservation efforts
to restore this population under the heading Summary of Biological
Status and Threats, below.
Public Comments
(7) Comment: We received one comment recommending against listing
the white fringeless orchid as threatened or endangered. The commenter
stated that this opinion was based on the following: (1) The funds and
human hours that would be spent on the white fringeless orchid could be
spent elsewhere, such as on priority species; and (2) the species has
already declined in great numbers since it became a candidate for
listing in 1999, and it seems like more information is needed to allow
for preparation of a recovery plan for the species.
Our Response: The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires the Service
to identify species of wildlife and plants that are endangered or
threatened, based on the best available scientific and commercial data.
As discussed in the proposed rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) and
as summarized here, we have determined the threats to the white
fringeless orchid warrant its listing as threatened under the Act.
Regarding the commenter's assertion that the species has already
declined in great numbers since 1999, the Service acknowledges that
some populations have been lost or have declined since the species
became a candidate for listing, but notes that several new populations
have been discovered since that time. The Service's determination to
list the species as threatened, rather than endangered, reflects our
conclusion that the species is not at imminent risk of extinction.
Further, contrary to the commenter's assertion that more information is
needed to prepare a recovery plan, there are considerable biological
data available, as summarized in the proposed rule (80 FR 55304;
September 15, 2015), upon which a recovery plan can be based, as well
as ongoing conservation efforts that the Service and its partners can
build upon and learn from as we develop a recovery plan for the white
fringeless orchid.
(8) Comment: We received comments from four individuals or
organizations recommending that we designate critical habitat for white
fringeless orchid. Two of the commenters provided no information or
data to support their recommendations. One commenter suggested that
critical habitat would benefit conservation efforts for the white
fringeless orchid for the following reasons: Most of the threats
described in the proposed listing rule are related to habitat
disturbance or loss; many populations are small and, in the commenter's
opinion, would likely no longer exist absent critical habitat
designation; and the threat of unauthorized collection is, in the
commenter's opinion, neither imminent nor present. This commenter also
suggested that a threatened species would experience protective
benefits from critical habitat designation because of the requirement
for Federal agencies to consult with the Service about projects that
could potentially adversely affect critical habitat. Another commenter
who recommended designating critical habitat cited the habitat
specificity of the species and threats from human activity, such as
logging and construction, as the reasons for this recommendation.
Our Response: In the proposed rule (80 FR 55304; September 15,
2015), we weighed the expected increase in threats associated with a
critical habitat designation against the benefits that might be gained
by a critical habitat designation. We acknowledge that, as two
commenters observed, most of the threats described in the proposed rule
are related to disturbance or destruction of habitat. However, many of
the threats to habitat would not be alleviated by designation of
critical habitat, as they are not caused by actions or undertakings of
Federal agencies. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies,
including the Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of that species' critical habitat. Critical
habitat only provides protections where there is a Federal nexus, that
is, those actions that come under the purview of section 7 of the Act.
Critical habitat designation has no application to actions that do not
have a Federal nexus, including logging and construction on privately
owned lands. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act mandates that Federal agencies,
in consultation with the Service, evaluate the effects of its proposed
action on any designated critical habitat. Similar to the Act's
requirement that a Federal agency action not jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species, Federal agencies have the responsibility
not to implement actions that would destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. Critical habitat designation alone,
however, does not require that a Federal action agency implement
specific steps toward species recovery.
Some of the populations on Federal lands are the largest known, and
any future activity involving a Federal action that would destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat at these sites would also likely
jeopardize the species' continued existence. Consultation with respect
to critical habitat would provide additional protection to a species
only if the agency action would result in the destruction or adverse
modification of the critical habitat but would not jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. In the absence of a critical
habitat designation, areas that support white fringeless orchid will
continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded
by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as appropriate.
We disagree with one commenter's assertion that because most
populations are small they likely would no longer exist absent a
critical habitat designation. On the contrary, the fact that most of
the populations are small, combined with the fact that they are located
in remote sites that are infrequently monitored by conservation
organizations or law enforcement, led the Service to conclude that
publishing locations of those populations in maps that would be
required for a critical habitat designation would heighten the threat
of collection. In small populations, the collection of even a few
individuals would diminish reproductive output and likely reduce
genetic diversity, reducing the resilience of those populations to
recover from other threats to habitat or individual plants.
Despite one commenter's assertion that the threat of collection is
neither imminent nor present, the proposed rule documented that this
threat is both present and imminent, as observed by Service and
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) biologists
during 2014. Identification of critical habitat would increase the
magnitude and severity of this threat by spatially depicting exactly
where the
[[Page 62830]]
species may be found and widely publicizing this information, exposing
these fragile populations and their habitat to greater risks. We have
reviewed management plans and other documents produced by Federal and
State conservation agencies and scientific literature, and detailed
information on the specific locations of white fringeless orchid sites
is not currently available.
(9) Comment: We received comments from Georgia Power informing us
of conservation efforts directed towards a roadside population in
Chattooga County, Georgia, which also lies within a power transmission
right-of-way. Georgia Power also commented on its collaborative efforts
with GDNR to monitor, protect, and manage the occurrence located on
GDNR lands in Rabun County, Georgia.
Our Response: We have included this information under the heading
Summary of Biological Status and Threats.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
Based on these comments, in this final rule, we include two minor
changes from the proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15,
2015). Those changes are discussed above under the heading
Distribution. Additionally, under the heading Summary of Biological
Status and Threats, we include a discussion of conservation efforts
based on comments we received from GDOT and Georgia Power.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following 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; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing may be warranted
based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
Each of these factors is discussed below.
In the proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015), we
carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the white
fringeless orchid and provided a detailed account of those threats and
the biological status of white fringeless orchid.
We have determined that the threats to white fringeless orchid
consist primarily of destruction and modification of habitat (Factor A)
resulting in excessive shading, soil disturbance, altered hydrology,
and proliferation of invasive plant species; collecting for
recreational or commercial purposes (Factor B); herbivory (Factor C);
and small population sizes and dependence on specific pollinators and
fungi to complete its life cycle (Factor E). Existing regulatory
mechanisms have not led to a reduction or removal of threats posed to
the species from these factors (Factor D). We summarize each of those
threats here. Please refer to the proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304;
September 15, 2015) for the full discussion.
Habitat destruction and modification (Factor A) from development,
silvicultural practices, excessive shading, and altered hydrology
(i.e., pond construction, beaver dam removal) have resulted in
extirpation of the species from 10 sites (Shea 1992, pp. 15, 25; TDEC
2014). These threats, in addition to invasive plant species (U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) 2008, p. 53; Richards 2013, pers. comm.; KSNPC
2014; TDEC 2014), feral hogs (Zettler 1994, p. 687; USFS 2008, p. 54;
Richards 2013, pers. comm.; Richards 2014, pers. comm.; Tackett 2015,
pers. comm.), and right-of-way maintenance (Taylor 2014, pers. comm.),
are associated with habitat modifications affecting dozens of other
occurrences that are extant or of uncertain status. The best available
information indicates that habitat for many existing populations is
adversely affected by factors that either directly harm individual
white fringeless orchids or alter the plant communities, soils, and
water flow in the sites where they occur. These factors include
residential development, utility and road right-of-way maintenance,
timber harvesting, invasive species encroachment, and vegetation
succession in the absence of disturbance. Impacts to habitat from
activities such as development and silvicultural practices include
direct impacts such as habitat conversion and ground disturbance, and
indirect impacts such as altered hydrology, increased shading, and
introduction of invasive, nonnative plants. The threats to the white
fringeless orchid from habitat destruction and modification are
occurring throughout much of the species' range and these population-
level impacts are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
During the comment period, GDOT and Georgia Power provided
information on conservation efforts that have been directed to a
roadside occurrence in Chattooga County, Georgia, which is located in a
power transmission right-of-way. As noted in the proposed listing rule
(80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015), this site was adversely affected by
unauthorized collection in 2004, and remains vulnerable to this threat
due to its location alongside a State highway. Georgia Power and GDOT
have designated this site an ``Environmentally Sensitive Area,''
restricting mowing and herbicide use. They are also working with ABG to
augment the population at this occurrence with plants propagated from
seed collected at this site. Georgia Power is also collaborating with
GDNR to protect, monitor, and manage another occurrence, located in
Rabun County, Georgia, and reported that a prescribed burn was recently
conducted in the area where this occurrence is located. ABG staff have
collected seeds from this population to produce propagated plants that
will be used to augment the population at this occurrence.
Collecting for scientific, recreational, or commercial purposes
(Factor B) has been determined to be the cause for extirpation of the
white fringeless orchid at its type locality (Ettman and McAdoo 1979
cited in Zettler and Fairey 1990, p. 212), and recent evidence
demonstrates that collection remains a threat to this species. Fungal
pathogens have been identified as a threat to white fringeless orchid,
but a threat with potentially greater impact associated with Factor C
is inflorescence herbivory, presumably by deer (Zettler and Fairey
1990, p. 212-214). Flower herbivory has been reported at over one-third
of extant occurrences and likely is a factor threatening most white
fringeless orchid occurrences (Shea 1992, pp. 27, 61, 71-77, 95-97;
TDEC 2012, p. 3; KSNPC 2014; TDEC 2014), especially where low numbers
of plants are present. Tuber herbivory or soil disturbance by feral
hogs has been reported at multiple occurrences, including the site
harboring the largest known white fringeless orchid population (Zettler
1994, p. 687; USFS 2008, p. 54).
The effects of all of the above-described threats are intensified
by the small population sizes that characterize a majority of
occurrences throughout the species' geographic range (Factor E), due to
their diminished capacity to recover from loss of individuals or low
[[Page 62831]]
reproductive output resulting from other threats (Zettler et al. 1996,
p. 22). Further, the species' dependence on a limited number of
Lepidoptera (Zettler et al. 1996, p. 16) and a single species of fungi
(Currah et al. 1997, p. 30) to complete its life cycle make it
vulnerable to disturbances that diminish habitat suitability for these
taxa as well (Factor E). Climate has changed in recent decades in the
southeastern United States, and the rate of change likely will continue
to increase into the future (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 111-112) (Factor E).
Although we do not have data to determine specifically how the habitats
where the white fringeless orchid occurs will be affected by, or how
the species will respond to, these changes, the potential for adverse
effects to the white fringeless orchid, either through changes in
habitat suitability or effects on populations of pollinators or
mycorrhizal fungi, is likely to increase as climate continues to change
at an accelerating rate.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that white fringeless orchid
is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion
of its range within the foreseeable future based on the low to moderate
threats currently impacting the species. The species is known to be
extant at 57 locations (see Table 1, above), but low numbers of
individuals have been observed at more than half of these (see Figure 1
in the proposed listing rule: 80 FR 55304, September 15, 2015, p.
55309), distributed across the species' range, and their persistence
into the future is uncertain. Furthermore, the threats of habitat
destruction or modification and herbivory are present throughout the
species' geographic range. Left unmanaged, these threats will likely
lead to further reductions in the species' geographic range and
abundance at individual sites, increasing the risk of extinction to the
point of endangerment. The combination of small population sizes
combined with the white fringeless orchid's dependence on specific
pollinators and fungi to complete its life cycle diminishes the
resilience of populations to recover from adverse effects of threats
due to habitat destruction or modification and herbivory.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we are listing the white fringeless orchid as
threatened in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The species does not currently meet the definition of endangered
species, because a sufficient number of robust populations are present
on publicly owned or managed lands, which despite numerous threats, are
actively managed such that the risk of extinction is not imminent.
Furthermore, conservation efforts have been initiated that could be
effective in reducing threats by increasing population sizes and
improving habitat conditions across much of the species' geographic
range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the
white fringeless orchid is threatened throughout all of its range, no
portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the
definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See
the 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).
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. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-specific
management actions that set a trigger for review of the five factors
that control whether a species remains endangered or 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. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing
or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes
available. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and
State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are
often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the
recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will
be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered) or from
our Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for
recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including
Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal
landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental
[[Page 62832]]
organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the
States of Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee
and the Commonwealth of Kentucky will be eligible for Federal funds to
implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of
the white fringeless orchid. Information on our grant programs that are
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the white fringeless orchid. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. 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 any endangered or threatened species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
consultation, as described in the preceding paragraph, include
management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service
(USFS), and National Park Service (NPS); issuance of section 404 Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; powerline right-of-way construction and maintenance by the
TVA; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the
Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and
threatened plants. With regard to threatened plants, 50 CFR 17.71
provides that all of the prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.61 applicable to
endangered plants apply to threatened plants, with one exception. Thus,
the regulations at 50 CFR 17.71(a) make it illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export,
transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a
commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas
under Federal jurisdiction any threatened plant. There is an exception
for the seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a statement that
the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the seeds or their
container. The Act itself, at 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(2)(B), prohibits
malicious damage or destruction of any such species on any area under
Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging
or destroying of any such 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.
Under 50 CFR 17.72, we may issue permits to carry out otherwise
prohibited activities involving threatened plants under certain
circumstances. A permit issued under this section must be for one of
the following: Scientific purposes, the enhancement of the propagation
or survival of threatened species, economic hardship, botanical or
horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or other activities
consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act.
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. Based on the best available information, the following
activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 the Act;
this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of white fringeless orchid,
including interstate transportation across State lines and import or
export across international boundaries, except for properly documented
antique specimens of this species at least 100 years old, as defined by
section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of white
fringeless orchid plants from populations located on Federal land
(USFS, NPS, and Service lands); and
(3) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of white
fringeless orchid plants on private land in violation of any State
regulation, including criminal trespass.
At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that
would not be considered to result in a violation of section 9 of the
Act because the white fringeless orchid occurs in a variety of habitat
conditions across its range and it is likely that site-specific
conservation measures may be needed for activities that may directly or
indirectly affect the species. Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should
be directed to the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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
listing a species as an endangered or threatened species 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).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by adding an entry for ``Platanthera
integrilabia'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened
[[Page 62833]]
Plants in alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Platanthera integrilabia........ White fringeless Wherever found.... T 81 FR [Insert Federal
orchid. Register page where
the document begins];
September 13, 2016.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: August 23, 2016.
James W. Kurth,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-21954 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P