SMOOTH CONEFLOWER

(Echinacealaevigata)

RecoveryPlan

U.S. FishandWildlife ServiceSoutheastRegionSAtlanta,Georgia

RECOVERYPLAN

for

Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)

Prepared by

Nora A. MurdockU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Asheville. North Carolina

for

Southeast RegionU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Atlanta. Georgia

Approved:Noreen K. dough, RegionaU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Date: /j~jVAiI

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to berequired to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans arepublished by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes preparedwith the assistance of recovery teams, contractors. State agencies,and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds madeavailable subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting theparties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities.Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor theofficial positions or approval of any individuals or agenciesinvolved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. They represent the official position of theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed bythe Regional Director or Director as aDproved. Approved recoveryplans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings,changes in species status, and completion of the recovery tasks.

Literature citations should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Smooth Coneflower RecoveryPlan. Atlanta, GA. 31 pp.

Additional copies may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110Bethesda, Maryland 20814Telephone: 301/492-6403 or

1-800/582-3421

Fees for recovery plans vary, depending upon the number of pages.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Species Status: Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) islisted as endangered. There are 24 known populations--i fromVirginia, 6 from North Carolina, 8 from South Carolina, and 3 fromGeorgia.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: Smooth coneflower iscurrently known from open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, drylimestone bluffs, utility line rights-of-way, and other sunny topartly sunny situations, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich soilsassociated with underlying mafic rock. Although some of the gladessupporting E. laevigata are naturally self-sustaining (especially inVirginia), historically, much of the species’ habitat probably wasprairielike habitat or post oak-blackjack oak savannas that weremaintained by fires caused by lightning or set by native Americans.Loss of this open habitat to fire suppression and urbanization hasresulted in the decline of the species and its reduction, in manycases, to marginal and highly vul nerable sites.

Recovery Ob.iective: Reclassification to threatened, followed bydelisting.

Recovery Criteria: Echinacea laevigata will be considered forreclassification from endangered to threatened when 12 geographicallydistinct, self-sustaining populations are protected in at least twocounties in Virginia. two counties in North Carolina, two counties inSouth Carolina, and one county in Georgia; when managers have beendesignated for each population: when management plans have beendeveloped and implemented; and when populations have been maintainedat stable or increasing levels for 5 years. At least nine of the12 populations must be in natural habitats, in permanent conservationownerships and management. Delisting will be considered when atleast 15 geographically distinct, self-sustaining populations areprotected in at least two counties in Virginia, two counties in NorthCarolina, two counties in South Carolina. and one county in Georgia;when management plans have been implemented; when populations havebeen stable or increasing for 10 years; and when permanentconservation ownership and management of at least 10 populations areassured by legally binding instruments.

Actions Needed

:

1. Implement protective management for extant populations.2. Survey suitable habitat for additional populations and potential

reintroduction sites; reestablish populations within the species’historic range.

3. Protect viable populations through a range of protection tools(management agreements, acquisition, registry, cooperativeagreements, etc.).

4. Monitor existing populations.

5. Conduct research on the biology of the species and on suitablemanagement tools for maintaining the natural ecosystem in whichit occurs.

6. Maintain cultivated sources for the species and provide forlong-term maintenance of selected populations in cultivation.

Total Estimated Cost of Recoverydetermine costs beyond estimatescosts will depend on the resultsrecovery process.

($000’s): It is not possible tofor the first few years; futureof research conducted early in the

I &i~A 1 1 Me~e~A ~ I M~{ ~ I t4g~1 A I N~M~ I N~d 6 1 Tot~I~OI jt~~IJJ. ~ I’~’ 1’LL~FYi 300 150 400 300 300 100 1550

FY2 300 200 400 150 150 50 1250

FY3—TOTAL

400—

1000

250—

600

400—

1200

150

600

150

600

50—

200

1400

4200

Impossible to determine at this time.Date of Recovery

:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PaQe

PART I:

INTRODUCTIONDescriptionDistributionHabitat . .Life History/Eco]ogyThreatsConservation EffortsStrategy for Recovery

1112469

11

PART II:

RECOVERY . . . .A. Recovery ObjectivesB. Narrative OutlineC. Literature Cited

PART III:

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

LIST OF REVIEWERS

PART IV:

APPENDIX:

12121317

20

22

Insect Visitors to Echinacea laevigata 31

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Descri pti on

Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata [Boyntonand Beadle] Blake)was federally listed as endangered on October 8, 1992 (U.S. Fish andWildlife Service [Service] 1992). This rhizomatous perennial herb inthe aster family (Asteraceae) was first described in 1903, under thename Brauneria, by Boynton and Beadle from material collected inSouth Carolina in 1888; it was transferred to the genus Echinacea in1929 (Small 1933, McGregor 1968). Smooth coneflower grows up to1.5 meters (59 inches) tall from a vertical root stock; stems aresmooth, with few leaves. The largest leaves are the basal leaves,which reach 20 cm (7.8 inches) in length and 7.5 cm (2.9 inches) inwidth, have long petioles, and are elliptical to broadly lanceolate,taper to the base, and are smooth to slightly rough. The midstemleaves have shorter petioles, if petioles are present, and aresmaller than the basal leaves. Flower heads are usually solitary.The ray flowers (petallike structures on the composite flower heads)are light pink to purplish, usually drooping, and 5 to 8 cm (1.9 to3.1 inches) long. Disk flowers are about 5 mm (0.2 inches) long~have tubular purple corollas; and have mostly erect, short triangularteeth (Kral 1983, Radford et al. 1968, McGregor 1968, Cronquist 1980,Gaddy 1991, Wofford 1989). The smooth coneflower can bedistinguished from its most similar relative, the purple coneflower(E. purpurea), by its leaves, which in the smooth coneflower arenever cordate (heart-shaped) like those of the purple coneflower. Inaddition, the awn of the pale (chaffy scales at the base of thefruit) in the smooth coneflower is incurved, while that ofF. purpurea is straight. The vertical rootstock of E. laevigata alsodistinguishes it from F. purpurea, which has a horizontal rootstock(Kral 1983, Gaddy 1991, Wofford 1989). The name Echinacea is derivedfrom the Greek word Echinos, which is also used in the names for seaurchins and hedgehogs, referring to their spiny appearance. Thedried seed heads on Echinaceas have a bristly appearance, owing tothe sharp points of the shiny pales which remain intact long afterthe plant has finished flowering (Foster 1991, Kral 1983).

Distribution

The reported historical range of smooth coneflower includedPennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina.Georgia, Alabama. and Arkansas. The species is now known to surviveonly in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. (Inthis plan, the term “population” can refer to a group ofsubpopulations or occurrences, which are clustered within the samevicinity and are exposed to common threats and potentially exchangegenetic material via common pollinators. For instance, SouthCarolina’s eight ‘populations’ consist of several dozen colonies orsubpopulations clustered into eight centers of geographicdistribution; Virginia’s seven “populations” are comprised of

23 occurrences that are tracked separately by the Virginia Departmentof Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage.Defining specific population boundaries for species such as this one,with fragmented distributions, is very difficult, particularlywithout data on population genetics and without knowing the identityof major pollinators. This definition of population centers may berevised once additional data is obtained.) Seven populations survivein Virginia, six in North Carolina, eight in South Carolina, andthree in Georgia. Three additional populations in South Carolina(two in Aiken County and one in Allendale County) are believed bysome authorities to be relicts of garden plantings rather thannaturally occurring (Gaddy 1991).

A total of 62 populations of Echinacea laevigata have been reportedhistorically from 26 counties in eight States. The reports fromAlabama and Arkansas are now believed to have been misidentifications(Gaddy 1991). The remaining populations are located in Alleghany,Pulaski, Montgomery, Campbell, and Franklin Counties, Virginia;Durham, Granville, and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina; Oconee,Anderson, Richland, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina; andStephens and Habersham Counties, Georgia. The sites in Aiken andBarnwell Counties, South Carolina, are believed by some authoritiesto have been planted. Of the 24 surviving populations, seven occuron land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, two are on U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers land, one is on North Carolina Department ofAgriculture land, one site is owned by the South Carolina HeritageTrust Program, one site is within a right-of-way maintained by theSouth Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation,one is on land managed by Clemson University, one is on a militaryreservation managed by the Department of the Army, and the remainingnine populations are on privately owned land. Several of thesepopulations occur in or near transmission line corridors of variousutility companies or near highway rights-of-way.

Habitat

The habitat of smooth coneflower consists of open woods, cedarbarrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power linerights-of-way,usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich soilsassociated with amphibolite, dolomite, or limestone (in Virginia)(Chris Ludwig, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,Division of Natural Heritage, personal communication, 1994;Terwilliger 1991), gabbro (in North Carolina and Virginia), diabase(in North Carolina and South Carolina), and marble (in South Carolinaand Georgia).

Smooth coneflower occurs in community types described by Schafale andWeakley (1990) as xeric hardpan forests and diabase glades or inVirginia dolomite woodlands or glades as described by Rawinski(1994). Xeric hardpan forests occur on upland flats and gentleslopes with an impermeable clay subsoil; however, water does notstand on them for extended periods. Diabase glades are similar but

2

are distinguished by the presence of solid rock near the soil surfaceand by a more. open structure with a mixed physiognomy with herb,shrub, and woodland patches. Although diabase glades are xeric mostof the year, water does pond on them during wet periods. Thedynamics of diabase glades are not well understood, but openings areapparently maintained by the extreme shallowness and dryness of thesoils and possibly also by soil shrink-swell. Soil series typical ofboth community types, usually underlain by mafic rock, are Iredell(Typic .Hapludalf). Misenheimer (Aquic Dystrochrept), and Picture(Abruptic Argiaquoll). In Virginia, populations are often associatedwith Elbrook Formation dolomite, where they are part of a veryspecies-rich community. These Virginia dolomite woodlands and gladesretain much of their open character due to naturally harsh edaphicconditions. These woodlands occur on loamy dolomite soils of highmagnesium content and friable consistency. The physicalcharacteristics of the soil suggest a paucity of clay, which maycause more rapid drainage and diminished moisture retention.Woodland occurrences on steep side-slope or clifflike areas are rockyand are in a high energy colluvial environment that continuallyerodes and transports soil surface material. In addition, manyoccurrences are found on the crest or upper slopes of sunny southernaspects, and the possible influence of a climatic “rain shadow” mayalso create more prolonged periods of drought, further contributingto the persistence of these open communities (The Nature Conservancy1994; Ludwig and Caren Caljouw, Virginia Department of Conservationand Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, personal communication,1994).

Dominant trees in smooth coneflower habitat (usually blackjack oak[Quercusmarilandica] and post oak EQ. stellata] or chinquapin oakEQ. muhlenbergii) are usually stunted and the canopy is open. Othertrees and shrubs sometimes found on these sites include red cedar(Juniperus virginiana), redbud (Cercis canadensis), persimmon(Diospyros virginiana), sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), squawhuckleberry (V. stamineum), blueberry (V. pallidurn [=vacAlans]),winged elm (Ulmus alata), fringe-tree (Chionanthus virginicus), haw(Viburnum rafinesqujanum), and black haw (V. prunifolium). The morecommon herb species include oat grass (Danthonia spicata), littlebluestem (Schizachyrium [=Andropogon]scoparium), curlyheads(Clematis ochroleuca), white-topped aster (Aster solidagineus),rattlesnake-weed (Hieracium venosum), hawkweed (Hierac’um gronovii).St. Andrew’s cross (Hypericum hypericoides), Aster dumosus, Lespedezaspp. , sundrops (Qenothera fruticosa), blazing star (Liatrisgraminifolia), rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium). noddingonion (AiJium cernuum), silky bindweed (Ca lystegia sericata), andgoldenrods (Solidago spp.).

On sites where woody succession is held in check by disturbance suchas mowing or fire, the herbaceous flora is more diverse,characterized by a number of species with prairie affinities andincluding other rare plants such as smooth sunflower (Helianthuslaevigatus) and Schweinitz’s sunflower (He lianthus schweinitzii, also

3

federally listed as endangered). Although Schweinitz’s sunflower andsmooth coneflower occupy the same type of habitat, they are not knownto occur together on any sites. Other associates include crestedcoralroot (Hexalectris spicata), smooth peavine (Lathyrus venosus),Earle’s blazing star (Liatris squarrulosa), hoary puccoon(Lithospermum canescens), Carol ma bi rdfoot-trefoi 1 (Lotus purshianusvar. helleri), wild quinine (Parthenium integrifolium var.auriculatum), prairie dock (Silphium terebinthinaceum), a liverwort(Lophozia capitata), and serpentine aster (Aster depauperatus {acandidate for Federal listing]). Additional species found in diabaseglades include portulaca (Portulaca smaliii), fameflower (Ta linumteretifolium), buttonweed (Diodea teres). bluets (Houstoniatenuifolia), agave (Manfreda [=Agave]virginica), milkweed (Asciepiasverticillata), prickly pear (Opuntia compressa), (Crotonopsiselliptica). blue curls (Trichosterna brachiatum), dropseed (Sporobolusclandestinus), Indian currant (SyTnphoricarpos orbiculatus), fragrantsumac (Rhus arornatica), barberry (Berberis canadensis),(Trachelospermum difforrne), and (Matelea decipiens).

In Virginia, smooth coneflower sites are sometimes shared with talllarkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) and Addison’s leather flower(Clematis addisonii). both of which are candidates for Federallisting (Schafale and Weakley 1990; Tom Rawinski, Virginia Departmentof Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage,personal communication. 1993; Gaddy 1991).

Optimal sites for smooth coneflower are characterized by abundantsunlight and little competition in the herbaceous layer (Gaddy 1991).Natural fires, as well as large herbivores, are part of the historyof the vegetation in this species’ range; many of the associatedherbs are also cormophytic, sun-loving species, which depend onperiodic disturbances to reduce the shade and competition of woodyplants (Kral 1983, Gaddy 1991). Harsh conditions on these sitesallow only slow recovery of woody cover from fire (Schafale andWeakley 1990), so even a limited historical fire frequency would havehad long-lasting effects on this habitat.

Life Hi storv/Ecol OQY

Information on the life history and species biology of smoothconeflower is limited. Flowering occurs from May through July, andfruits develop from late June to September (Gaddy 1991). The fruitis a gray-brown, oblong-prismatic achene, usually four-angled, and4 to 4.5 mm long; seeds are 0.5 cm long (Kral 1983, Gaddy 1991).Gaddy (1991) stated that reproduction was apparently only by sexualmeans and that no vegetative reproduction had been observed.However, vegetative reproduction has been reported from theChattahoochee National Forest in Georgia (Robert Joslin, U.S. ForestService, personal communication, 1994) and from the Sumter NationalForest in South Carolina (Lonnette Edwards, U.S. Forest Service,personal communication. 1995). Pollinators for this species areunknown; however, Edwards and Madsen (1993) have documented a

4

preliminary list of insect visitors to South Carolina populations ofsmooth coneflower (see Appendix A). Seeds are probably dispersed byseed-eating birds or small mammals. Although data are unavailableregarding smooth coneflower, goldfinches, as well as white-taileddeer, have been observed feeding on the seed heads of the endangeredTennessee coneflower (Echinacea tennesseens is) (Currie and Somers1989). Hemmerly (1976) found that seeds of the Tennessee coneflowerwere seldom dispersed by wind more than 3 feet beyond the parentplant. Preliminary investigations with F. laevigata have revealedsimilar patterns, with seedlings being observed only in the immediatevicinity of parent plants (Edwards, personal communication, 1995).Gaddy (1991) stated that reproductive success is generally poor inthis species. Edwards (personal communication, 1995) observed fewseedlings in wild populations and found low seed production rates inboth wild and greenhouse plants. Edwards (personal communication,1995) further observed that what appears to be individuals of thisspecies “. . .arise from an underground caudex and may consist oflateral rhizomes as well, which produce above-ground shoots(rosettes).” These plants can consist of one to several rosettes,flowering leafy stems arising from a basal rosette, or a single leaf.Individual rhizomes can consist of combinations of all three of theseforms. As Edwards states,

This clonal growth form makes it difficult to distinguishphysiologically independent plants, let alone individuals(genets). Genetic research could be of great benefit indetermining not only how many “individuals” wererepresented in a given site, but also the distribution,frequency and persistence of certain genotypes/phenotypesin a population.

Smooth coneflower appears to need bare soil that is rich in magnesiumand/or calcium for seedling germination and growth. Some form ofdisturbance (such as fire) is also essential. Gaddy further states:

Where competition is absent and bare, disturbed soil ispresent, smooth coneflower populations may surviveindefinitely. Most sites, however, do not exhibit theseideal habitat conditions. Smooth coneflower appears inhabitat patches and survives there until its preferredconditions disappear. If it is unable to reach anothersuitable patch, the plant becomes locally extinct. It isnot known if the seeds of Echinacea laevigata remain viablein the soil of sites where smooth coneflower plants nolonger exist. If some of the historic sites were opened upand burned, more evidence on the long term viability ofsmooth coneflower seeds could be obtained.

For the Tennessee coneflower, Hemmerly (1976) found that a relativelyhigh percentage (67 percent) of the seeds could be germinated underoptimum conditions; these conditions were found to be 16 weeks ofseed stratification at or about 410F (500C) followed by germination

5

in light at 590F (150C) to 770F (250C). Dry storage for up to60 months resulted in only a moderate loss of viability. Recentstudies by Feghahati and Reese (1994) on F. angustifolia have shownthat a 2-week pre-chill treatment in combination with ethephon andcontinuous light, followed by a 2-week germination period in light(16 hours per day at 770F [250C]),could induce over 95 percent seedgermination. This is a significantly higher germination percentageover a shorter period of time than has been achieved with anypreviously described method.

Gaddy (1991) found that smooth coneflower was always present in lowdensities at occupied sites; the highest percentage cover observedwas approximately 30 percent (at the Walnut Hill site in Virginia).Frequency was sometimes high within small subpopulations but low whenthe entire community was sampled. Further research on this speciesis currently underway and should further define life history andspecies biology, as well as determine appropriate management measures(Edwards and Madsen 1993; Edwards, personal communication, 1995).

Threats

Factors endangering smooth coneflower include habitat destruction anddegradation, curtailment of range, collection, fire suppression,highway right-of-way maintenance, urbanization and suburbanization ofthe area of occurrence of the species, encroachment by exoticspecies, possible predation by insects, inadequacy of existingprotection afforded by State laws, small population size, and lack offormal protection for all but a few of the known populations.

Since discovery of the species, 62 percent of the known populationshave been extirpated, partly as a result of conversion of habitat forsilvicultural and agricultural purposes and for industrial andresidential development. Of the 38 populations that have beenextirpated, one is known to have been eliminated by highwayconstruction, another by construction of a gas pipeline, and a thirdby conversion of the site to pine plantation. Causes for thedestruction of the other populations are undocumented. Of the23 extant populations, 13 are currently declining in numbers ofplants, only nine are considered stable, and one is increasing.Nineteen of the populations are currently threatened by habitatalterations (Gaddy 1991).

Half of the remaining populations survive along roadsides. Inaddition, three populations remain on utility line rights-of-way,another is along an abandoned railroad right-of-way, and a fifth ison the edge of a motorbike trail in a wooded area. Many of thepopulations are small, with 11 containing less than 100 plants each.Such small populations are inherently vulnerable to extirpation as aresult of highway and right-of-way improvement, particularly ifherbicides are used.

6

Highly restricted distribution, as well as the scarcity of seedsources and appropriate habitat, increases the severity of thethreats faced by smooth coneflower. As stated, this species actuallyrequires some form of disturbance to maintain its open habitat andcan even withstand mowing and timber-harvesting operations, ifproperly done. However, it cannot withstand bulldozing or directapplication of broadleaf herbicides. In addition, the smallpopulations that survive on road edges could be easily destroyed byhighway improvement projects or by right-of-way maintenanceactivities if these are not done in a manner consistent withprotection of the species. In Virginia, a major highway project isproposed that may eliminate part of one of the State’s occurrences ofthis species (Ludwig, personal communication, 1994).

Many of the more common native coneflowers are in demand forhorticultural use and are a significant part of the commercial trade,but Echinacea laevigata is cultivated and offered for sale by only afew native plant nurseries. Cultivation of rare species such as thesmooth coneflower, to supply market demand, reduces the pressure onwild populations and should be encouraged. Overshadowing thepotential threat of collection of wild plants for horticulturalpurposes is the threat of commercial collection for thepharmaceutical trade. For over a century, Midwestern species in thisgenus have been harvested and sold in European and American marketsunder the trade name “Kansas snake root” (McGregor 1968). In Germanyalone, over 280 products made from various species of this Americangenus are registered for medicinal use (Bauer and Wagner 1990).Steven Foster (Consultant, Eureka Springs, Arkansas, letter to NoraMurdock, 1990) made the following statement:

The potential danger of inadvertent harvest of plants forcommercial markets may be the greatest hidden danger toEchinacea laevigata.. .we have been able to document thatthree endemic species have also been harvested withoutproper attention to species identity in the Midwest. Theseinclude the Ozark endemics, F. paradoxa and F. simulata, aswell as F. atrorubens.

Documented harvests have reached as high as 200,000 pounds(90,720 kg) collected from a single county in Kansas in 1 year.Given the fact that at least 8 to 10 dried roots are required to makeup 1 pound (0.45 kg), this single harvest represented the collectionof about two million roots. Dr. Ronald McGregor, director emeritusof the herbarium at the University of Kansas and the leadingauthority on the genus Echinacea (in Foster 1991), noted drasticdeclines in Kansas populations of Echinacea pal ida as a result ofcommercial harvests in the 5 years prior to 1987. Although most ofthe commercial supply of Echinacea purpurea now comes from cultivatedsources, the demand for the roots far outstrips the commercial supplyand is resulting in increasing pressure on wild populations of nearlyevery species in the genus.

7

In 1987, seven thousand individuals of the Ozark endemic, Echmnaceaparadoxa, were stolen from a Missouri State park (Wallace 1987).Wallace further stated, “Diggers do not discriminate between species,collecting all Echinaceas.” Foster (1991) states:

Unfortunately, a number of the endemic and more unusualEchinacea species are entering commercial lots, dug byunwitting harvesters. In the Ozarks, this author hasobserved Echinacea simulata, harvested by the truck load.Roadside populations have decreased dramatically in SouthCentral Missouri. The plant is much less common innorthern Arkansas. Commercial harvest of this species fromthe wild cannot be sustained. If harvested at currentlevels over the next 10 years, its fate will be extinction.

Although such devastation of smooth coneflower populations for thecommercial pharmaceutical trade has not yet been documented, almosttwo-thirds of the historically known populations of this species aregone. The remaining populations are almost all small, easilyaccessible, and highly vulnerable.

Echinacea laevigata is listed in North Carolina as endangered (Sutter1990. Weakley 1993), in South Carolina as nationally threatened(Rayner et al. 1984). in Georgia as threatened (McCollum and Ettman1987). in Alabama as endangered (Freeman et al. 1979); it is notlisted in Virginia (Ludwig, personal communication, 1994). Stateprohibitions against taking are difficult to enforce and do not coveradverse alterations of habitats, such as exclusion of fire.

The current distribution of the species is ample evidence of itsdependence on disturbance at most sites; 71 percent of the remainingpopulations are on roadsides, in utility or railroad rights-of-way,or adjacent to trails. Although some of the Virginia occurrencesappear to be edaphically or climatically self-sustaining, fire orsome other suitable form of disturbance, such as well-timed mowing(which simulates the effect of grazing by extirpated nativeherbivores) or careful clearing, is essential to maintaining most ofthe glade and prairie remnants occupied by Echinacea laevigataWithout such periodic disturbance, this type of habitat is graduallyovertaken and eliminated by shrubs and trees of the adjacentwoodlands. As the woody species increase in height and density, theyovertop E. laevigata, which, like most other coneflowers, isintolerant of dense shade. In addition, some believe that thespecies requires bare soil for germination of seeds (Gaddy 1991).

Echinacea angustifolia is known to be a host plant for certainspecies of leaf beetle (family Chrysomelidae) (Wilcox 1979). Beetlesin this family have been observed on Echinacea laevigata in NorthCarolina; it is not known what effect they have on the plants.Edwards (personal communication. 1995) has observed browsing offlowers and immature fruiting heads by grasshoppers and possiblywhite-tailed deer.

8

Conservati on Efforts

For the purposes of this recovery plan, geographically clusteredsubpopulations and colonies of smooth coneflower in Virginia havebeen grouped into seven population centers. In Virginia, one site isowned by The Nature Conservancy, and negotiations are underway withthe landowners of at least two other sites for protection. The siteowned by The Nature Conservancy was mowed in 1987 to manage for theconeflower and other rare associates; the mowing was followed by aninitial depression in numbers of flowering plants, followed by analmost 100-percent increase in numbers of stems 4 years later. Asmentioned earlier, a proposed highway project threatens one of theState’s remaining occurrences.

The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (Division ofNatural Heritage) and The Nature Conservancy have recently initiateda landowner contact program for priority Echinacea laevigata sites inMontgomery County, which is a stronghold for F. laevigata. Thisproject is sponsored by the Service and the Virginia Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services. Voluntary protection agreementshave been secured with several key landowners, and negotiations forstronger protection continue. The Virginia Department ofConservation and Recreation (Division of Natural Heritage) and theVirginia Chapter of The Nature Conservancy have identified this areaas a conservation focal area and hope to establish a natural areapreserve system in Montgomery County (Ludwig and Caljouw, personalcommunication, 1994).

In North Carolina. one of the largest known populations of thespecies is located on land owned by the North Carolina Department ofAgriculture. This site, known as the Picture Creek Barrens, wasformerly proposed as a site for a hazardous waste incinerator;however, the site is not currently under active consideration forthat project. In the spring of 1994. the North Carolina Department‘of Agriculture’s Plant Conservation Program, with funding from theService, initiated a prescribed-burning management program for thissmooth coneflower site; initial monitoring has revealed a favorableresponse by the coneflowers (Barnett-Lawrence 1994). At another sitenear Falls Lake, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated a seriesof management alternatives and selected mechanical removal of woodyspecies every 4 years as a more logistically feasible alternativethan fire. Regular monitoring is being conducted so that themanagement regime may be adjusted as necessary to more effectivelybenefit the species (Benjamin et al. 1991). In 1993, part of theconeflower population on the Falls Lake site was damaged by a loggingoperation. The Corps intervened to reduce the damage and tookmeasures to prevent any future occurrences of this type (Steve Brown,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, personal communication, 1993). TheService and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program have workedwith the North Carolina Department of Transportation to mark andprotect roadside populations of this species from accidental

9

destruction or mowing at the wrong time of year (safe mowing datesare November to early March).

Most of the surviving populations of smooth coneflower in SouthCarolina occur on the Sumter National Forest, where the U.S. ForestService began the first experimental management for this speciesusing fire. The first prescribed burn was conducted in the latewinter of 1992, following clearing of the woody vegetation from thesite in the fall of 1991; the number of flowering stems ofF. laevigata on the site quadrupled in the year following the burn(Perry Shatley, U.S. Forest Service, personal communication, 1992).However, 2 years later, plants on this site were beginning toexperience considerable competition from hardwood sprouts, andadditional management is needed. In an adjacent stand, which wasburned without prior canopy removal, the response was a ten-foldincrease in the number of Echinacea rosettes. These plants havelittle side competition and are suppressed only by the shade fromoverstory trees (Tom Waldrop, U.S. Forest Service, personalcommunication, 1994). The Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,Clemson, South Carolina, is conducting another series of experimentsin management for this species on the Sumter National Forestinvolving various combinations of woody species removal andprescribed fire in winter. The first burns were conducted in latewinter of 1994 (Joan Walker and Tom Waldrop. U.S. Forest Service.personal communication, 1994). On the Savannah River Site, theDepartment of Energy and the U.S. Forest Service are working tomanage for F. laevigata with experimental canopy thinning andprescribed fire (Pat Jackson, Department of Energy, personalcommunication, 1992). A small population (five individuals) wasrecently discovered on Fort Jackson, where the Department of the Armyis now protecting the site and is developing a management plan.

In Georgia, most of the smooth coneflower populations are located onthe Chattahoochee National Forest, where the U.S. Forest Service ismonitoring them and protecting the plants from mowing at the wrongseason. Plans are underway to reestablish the species at a sitethere, using plants propagated from seeds from the reestablishmentsite. A burn was conducted in the winter of 1993-94, and the resultsare being monitored (Ben Sanders, U.S. Forest Service, personalcommunication, 1994; Doug Watson. U.S. Forest Service, personalcommunication, 1994). Management techniques must balance the plant’sneed for sunlight with its limited ability to compete with sproutsand vigorous pioneer species. This may necessitate the use of fireat different seasons and/or partial tree removal followed by someform of forest floor disturbance.

The North Carolina Botanical Garden has acquired seeds and/or plantsfrom several of the North Carolina populations of F. laevigata,following the Center for Plant Conservation’s guidelines for ex situ.conservation of genetic material. Part of this material ismaintained as living plants (including one field-grown population atPenny’s Bend State Park near Durham, North Carolina), and part is

10

being stored as seed. Seeds are also being maintained in long-termstorage at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Seed StorageLaboratory in Ft. Collins, Colorado (Rob Gardner, North CarolinaBotanical Garden, personal communication, 1994). If, as seemslikely, currently extant wild populations of smooth coneflower areextirpated in the future, propagules gathered and stored could beused to reintroduce the species to sites where it has beenextirpated. Although such a method of conservation of the species isnot ideal, it serves as a prudent “backup” for this highly vulnerablespecies.

StrateQv for Recovery

A long-term. rangewide conservation strategy for smooth coneflowershould be aimed at protecting and managing (where necessary) coresites and population centers, as well as including further inventoryfor viable populations of the species. Particularly important willbe locating or reestablishing additional populations in naturalhabitat or in sites where natural habitat can be successfully andrealistically restored and then managed and protected. Existingpopulations must be maintained and monitored, research must beconducted on population biology and ecology, and managementtechniques must be developed and implemented in conjunction withongoing and expanded research efforts. Cultivated sources of germplasm should be maintained at plant propagation facilities. Publiceducation programs should be developed in areas within the species’range.

11

PART II

RECOVERY

A. Recovery Obiectives

Echinacea laevigata will be considered for reclassification fromendangered to threatened when 12 geographically distinct,self-sustaining (stable or increasing for 10 years or more)populations (see Part I, “Distribution,” for the definition of

population”) are protected across the species’ range, includingsome populations in at least two counties in Virginia, twocounties in North Carolina, two counties in South Carolina, andone county in Georgia; when managers have been designated foreach population; when management plans have been developed andimplemented; and when populations have been maintained at stableor increasing levels for 5 years. Furthermore, at least nine ofthese populations must be in areas within the species’ nativeecosystem (not in gardens or similarly artificial settings) thatare in permanent conservation ownership and management.Delisting the species will be considered when at least15 geographically distinct, self-sustaining populations areprotected in at least two counties in Virginia, two counties inNorth Carolina, two counties in South Carolina, and one county inGeorgia; when management plans have been implemented; whenpopulations (as measured by number of adult plants) have beenstable or increasing for 10 years; and when permanentconservation ownership and management of at least ten populationsare assured by legally binding instruments.

This recovery objective is considered an interim goal because ofthe lack of data on the biology and management requirements ofthe species. The number of self-sustaining populations requiredfor the species’ survival may require reassessment as more islearned about the species’ biology, former and current range, andhabitat requirements.

12

B. Narrative Outline

1. ImDlement Drotective manaQement for extant poDulations. Only23 populations of smooth coneflower are currently known, allin Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.Many of these are highly vulnerable to collection, habitatdestruction, or detrimental management. The majority ofthese populations are on land owned and managed by highwaydepartments or public utilities. Mowing of these populationsat inappropriate times of the year should be prevented (safemowing dates are November to early March), while assuringthat yearly burning or bush-hogging of the sites (atappropriate times) does take place in order to controlcompeting vegetation. Herbicides should be used with greatcare in order to protect nontarget species (e.g. , applied byhand, not broadcast, to stumps and sprouts). Preliminaryinformation indicates that periodic controlled burning inmore natural sites, and either controlled burning oroccasional bush-hogging of roadside sites, will be needed.The exact management techniques and timing to be used will bedetermined and refined by future research.

2. Survey suitable habitat for additional DoDulations andpotential reintroduction sites: reestablish populationswithin the sDecies’ historic range. Considerable effort hasalready been directed toward searches for this rare species,but new populations are still occasionally being found.Systematic and comprehensive surveys for additionalpopulations are needed. The focus should be on locatingremnant populations or suitable reintroduction sites innatural or seminatural conditions where population viabilitycan be assured and where protection and management can becarried out most efficiently. Searches should use standardtools, such as soils maps, geological maps, and aerialphotography. Populations in remnant glades, prairies, oaksavannas, or Xeric Hardpan Forests will be especiallydifficult to locate and will require the extensive use ofaerial phQtography or reconnaissance. These populations,however, will offer far superior opportunities for long-termviability than those occupying narrow strips of habitat onroadsides or other rights-of-way.

3. Protect viable DoDulations throuQh a range of Drotectiontools (manaQement aQreements. acquisition. reQistrY

.

cOoDerative aQreements. etc.). The full range of protectiontools, including fee acquisition. tax-free land exchanges,signed management agreements, registry, and interagencymemoranda of understanding, will be needed to protect andrecover this species. Because of the need for activemanagement of the habitat of smooth coneflower, a permanentmeans of protection (such as fee simple acquisition orconservation easements), accompanied by long-term provisions

13

for active stewardship/management of the site, is needed toassure population viability. Resources from a variety ofagencies and private conservation organizations may benecessary.

4. Monitor existinQ Dopulations. Monitor the size and vigor ofknown populations. Initially, this monitoring should beconducted annually and should include counts (and, in somecases, mapping) of all individuals in the population, if thisis feasible. Where the dense concentrations of plants andthe difficulty in defining “individuals” makes thisimpossible, permanent subplots can be used to measure densityand coverage. In some populations permanent plots should beestablished to monitor seedling establishment and growth.The monitoring of populations will provide information on theefficacy of various management techniques. Once populationsare stabilized, monitoring can be conducted less frequently.

5. Conduct research on the bioloQy of the species and onsuitable manaQement tools for maintaininQ the naturalecosystem in which it occurs. A basic understanding of thespecies biology of smooth coneflower is needed in order tomanage populations of the species and to successfully recoverit. A partial list of topics that need research includeshabitat parameters (soils, geology, sun/shade, competition,etc.), reproductive biology (pollination, seed production,asexual reproduction via rhizomes, conditions andrequirements for seedling establishment and survival, etc.),genetic analysis within and between populations,demographics, and an evaluation of management techniques,such as prescribed fire (including seasonality andfrequency).

6. Maintain cultivated sources for the sDecies and provide forlonQ-term maintenance of selected poDulations in cultivation

.

Collection of seeds or other plant material from all knownpopulations should be accomplished (using the Center forPlant Conservation’s standards) in order to preserve the fullgenetic diversity of the species and provide material forreintroductions in the event of the extirpation ofpopulations.

7. Enforce laws protectinQ the sDecies and its habitat. Smoothconeflower is currently part of the horticultural trade, butit is offered for sale by only a few native plant nurseries.A ready source of cultivated material should ease the threatof taking from wild populations. Nurseries should beencouraged and assisted in the development of cultivatedstock. However, until a sufficient source is available, thetaking of plants from the wild will continue to be a threat.The Endangered Species Act prohibits the taking of smoothconeflower from Federal lands without a permit and regulates

14

trade. Section 7 of the Act provides additional habitatprotection from impacts related to federally funded orauthorized projects. In addition, for listed plants, the1988 amendments to the Act prohibit: (1) their maliciousdamage or destruction on Federal lands, and (2) theirremoval, cutting, digging, damaging, or destroying in knowingviolation of any State law or regulation, including Statecriminal trespass law.

In North Carolina, smooth coneflower is afforded legalprotection by North Carolina general statutes, §106-202.122,106-202.19 (Cum. Suppl. 1985). This legislation provides forprotection from intrastate trade (without a permit), providesfor monitoring and management of State-listed species, andprohibits the taking of plants without the written permissionof landowners. In Georgia the species is afforded legalprotection under the Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973,Code of Georgia Ann. , Title 43, Section 43-1801 to 43-1806.Georgia legislation prohibits the taking of listed plantsfrom public lands (without a permit) and regulates the saleand transport of plants within the State. Although SouthCarolina and Alabama recognize this species as nationallythreatened and endangered, respectively, neither State offerslegal protection for plants. Smooth coneflower is not listedby the State of Virginia.

8. Develop materials to inform the public about the status ofthe species and the recovery plan ob.iectives. Public supportfor the conservation of smooth coneflower could play animportant part in encouraging landowner assistance andconservation efforts. This is especially true for thosepopulations that occur in areas adversely affected byexpanding urban development. Information materials shouldnot identify the plant’s specific locations so as to avoidincreasing the threat of take. The U.S. Forest Service isalready promoting public education on the species throughnews releases and slide presentations in communities nearnational forests where this species grows.

8.1 Prepare and distribute news releases and informationalbrochures. News releases concerning the status andsignificance of the species and recovery efforts shouldbe prepared and distributed to major newspapers withinthe range of the species, as well as to smallernewspapers in the immediate vicinity of the species’habitat.

8.2 Preoare articles for popular and scientificDublications. The need to protect the species in itsnative habitat and cooperation among local, State, andFederal organizations and individuals should bestressed. Scientific publications should emphasize

15

additional research that is needed and solicit researchassistance from colleges and universities that haveconducted studies on this or closely related species.

9. Annually assess success of recovery efforts for the species

.

Review of new information, evaluation of ongoing actions, andredirection of recovery efforts, if necessary, are essentialfor assuring that full recovery is achieved as quickly andefficiently as possible.

16

C. Literature Cited

Barnett-Lawrence, Matthew. 1994. Smooth coneflower (Echinacealaevigata [Boyntonand Beadle] Blake) experimental

monitoring and management for 1993. Report to the NorthCarolina Plant Conservation Program, Raleigh, NC. 65 pp.

Bauer, R., and H. Wagner. 1990. Echinacea: Handbuch Fur Arzte.Apotheker und Andere Naturwissenschaftler.Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Stuttgart,Germany. 182 pp.

Benjamin, S., E. Drozda, A. Goode, and R. Martin. 1991. Anevaluation of management alternatives for the smoothconeflower sites at Falls Lake Reservoir. Duke University,Durham, North Carolina; Project completed for FES 316-CaseStudies in Environmental Management, School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies. 21 pp.

Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the Southeastern UnitedStates: Volume I, Asteraceae. University of North CarolinaPress, Chapel Hill, NC. 261 pp.

Currie, R., and P. Somers. 1989. Tennessee coneflower recoveryplan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 30 pp.

Edwards, L. , and D. Madsen. 1993. Technical draft recovery planfor smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). Class projectfor Wildlife Biology 812 - Conservation and Ecology ofEndangered Species; Clemson University, Clemson, SC. 18 pp.

Feghahati, S. M. Javad, and R. Neil Reese. 1994. Ethylene-,light-, and pre-chill-enhanced germination of Echinaceaangustifolia seeds. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.119(4) :853-858.

Foster, 5. 1991. Echinacea - Nature’s Immune Enhancer. HealingArts Press. Rochester, VT. 150 pp.

Freeman, J., A. Causey, J. Short, and R. Haynes. 1979.Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Plants inAlabama. Botany and Microbiology Series No. 3. AlabamaAgricultural Experiment Station. Auburn, AL. 24 pp.

Gaddy, L. L. 1991. The status of Echinacea laevigata (Boyntonand Beadle) Blake. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 24 pp.’ plus appendicesand maps.

17

Hemmerly, T. E. 1976. Life cycle strategy of a highly endemiccedar glade species: Echinacea tennesseensis (Compositae).PhD. Dissertation, Vanderbilt University. Nashville, TN.187 pp.

Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangeredforest-related vascular plants of the South. USDA ForestService, Technical Publication R8-TP 2. Pp. 1,135-1,138.

McCollum, J., and D. Ettman. 1987. Georgia’s Protected Plants.Revised Edition. Georgia Department of Natural Resources.Atlanta, GA. 64 pp.

McGregor, R. 1968. The taxonomy of the genus Echinacea(Compositae). The University of Kansas Science Bulletin48:113-142.

Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual ofthe vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1,183 pp.

Rawinski, T. J. 1994. Quercus muhlenbergii/Seneciop lattens is- -Part hen ium integri fol ium var. auriculatum- -Echinacea laevigata Woodland. In Rare plant communities ofthe conterminous United States. The Nature Conservancy.Pp. 56-58.

Rayner, D., C. Aulbach-Smith, W. Batson, and C. Rodgers. 1984.Rare and endangered plants of South Carolina. SouthCarolina Heritage Trust, Columbia, SC.

Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of thenatural communities of North Carolina, third approximation.North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.325 pp.

Small, J. K. 1933. Manual of the Southeastern flora.University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.1,554 pp.

Sutter, R. D. 1990. List of North Carolina’s endangered,threatened, and candidate plant species. Plant ConservationProgram, North Carolina Department of Agriculture,Raleigh, NC. 18 pp.

Terwilliger. K. 1991. Virginia’s endangered species. VirginiaDepartment of Game and Inland Fisheries, The McDonald andWoodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. Pp. 144-146.

The Nature Conservancy. 1994. Rare plant communities of theconterminous United States. Publication prepared for theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho. Pp.56-58.

18

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatenedwildlife and plants; determination of Echinacea laevigata(smooth coneflower) to be an endangered species. FederalRegister 57(196) :46340-46344.

Wallace, G. 1987. Coneflower Alert.Native Plant Society 2(3):3.

Petal Pusher; Missouri

Weakley, A. 5. 1993. Natural Heritage Program list of the rareplant species of North Carolina. North Carolina NaturalHeritage Program, Raleigh, NC. 79 pp.

Wilcox, J. 1979. Leaf beetle host plants in northeastern NorthAmerica. Biological Research Institute of America, Inc.World Natural History Publications, Kinderhook, NY. P. 11.

Wofford, B.Ridge.

E. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the BlueUniversity of Georgia Press. Athens, GA. P. 164.

19

PART III

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Priorities in column one of the following Implementation Schedule areassigned as follows:

1. Priority 1 - An action that must be taken to preventextinction or to prevent the species from decliningirreversibly in the foreseeable future.

2. Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent asignificant decline in species population/habitatquality or some other significant negative impact shortof extinction.

3. Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to meet therecovery objective.

Key to Acronyms Used in This Implementation Schedule

COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Falls Lake)CPC - Center for Plant ConservationFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceLE - Law Enforcement Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceR4 - Region 4 (Southeast Region), U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceRS - Region 5 (Northeast Region), U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSCA - State Conservation Agencies - State plant conservation

agencies of participating States. In North Carolina, theseare the Plant Conservation Program (North Carolina Departmentof Agriculture) and the Natural Heritage Program (NorthCarolina Department of Environment, Health, and NaturalResources); in South Carolina, the Heritage Trust Program(South Carolina Department of Natural Resources); in Virginia,the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,Division of Natural Heritage; and in Georgia, the FreshwaterWetlands -and Heritage Inventory (Georgia Department of NaturalResources).

TE - Endangered Species Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUSFS - U.S. Forest Service (Sumter and Chattahoochee National Forests

and Savannah River Forest Station)

20

SMOOThCONEFLOWERIMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

LL Priority1

Task

Nun~er1

Task Description

Tas)

Dlirhtlon5 years

Resi~onsib1e Agency Cost Estimates ($OOO’s)

Other FYI FY2 FY3 C~umntsR4 and SCA, USFS, 30.0 30.0 40.0R5/TE COE

Ir,~,lement protective managementfor extant populations.

1 3 Protect viable populationsthrough a range of protectiontoots (management agreements,acquisition, registry,cooperative agreements, etc.).

Unknown R4 andR5/TE

SCA, USFS 40.0 40.0 40.0

1 6 Maintain cultivated sources forthe species and provide forlong-term maintenance of selectedpopulations_in_cultivation.

Ongoing R4 andR5/TE

SCA, CPC,USFS

10.0 5.0 5.0

1 7 Enforce Laws protecting thespecies and its habitat.

Ongoing R4 andR5/TEand LE

SCA, USFS,COE

5.0 5.0 5.0

2 2 Survey suitable habitat foradditional populations andpotential reintroduction sites;reestablish populations withinthe_species’_historic_range.

3 years R4 andR5/TE

SCA, USFS 15.0 20.0 25.0

2 4 Monitor existing populations. Ongoing R4 andR5/TE

SCA, USFS,COE

30.0 15.0 15.0

2 5 Conduct research on the biologyof the species and on suitablemanagement tools for maintainingthe natural ecosystem in which itoccurs.

5 years R4 andR5/TE

SCA, USFS 30.0 15.0 15.0

3 8.1 Prepare and distribute newsreleases and informationalbrochures.

Ongoing R4 andR5/TE

SCA, USFS,COE

2.0 1.0 1.0

3 8.2 Prepare articles for popular andscientific publications.

Ongoing R4 andR5/TE

SCA, USFS 1.0 0.5 0.5

3 9 Annually assess success ofrecovery efforts for the species.

Ongoing R4 andR5/TE

SCA, USFS,COE

0.5 0.5 0.5

I-.

PART IV

LIST OF REVIEWERS

The following agencies, organizations, and individuals were mailedcopies of this recovery plan. This does not imply that they providedcomments or endorsed the contents of this plan.

*

Dr. Bob CookArnold Arboretum125 ArborwayJamaica Plain, Massachusetts 02130

Ms. Katherine Skinner, DirectorThe Nature ConservancyCarr Mill Suite D12Carrboro, North Carolina 27510*Dr. Dan Pittillo

Department of BiologyWestern Carolina UniversityCullowhee, North Carolina 28723*D James Matthews

Department of BiologyUniversity of North Carolina - CharlotteCharlotte, North Carolina 282134.Dr. Albert RadfordDepartment of BotanyUniversity of North Carolina - Chapel HillChapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

4.Dr. James W. HardinDepartment of BotanyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, North Carolina 27611*Dr. Bob Kral

Bi ol ogy DepartmentVanderbilt UniversityBox 1705, Station BNashville, Tennessee 37235

Mr. Cecil FrostNorth Carolina Department of AgriculturePlant Conservation ProgramP.O. Box 27647Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

22

Ms. Linda Pearsall , DirectorNorth Carolina Department of Environment,

Health, and Natural ResourcesDivision of Parks and RecreationNatural Heritage ProgramP.O. Box 27687Raleigh, North Carolina 276114.Dr. Larry BardenDepartment of BiologyUniversity of North Carolina - CharlotteCharlotte, North Carolina 28213

Mr. Rob GardnerCurator of Rare PlantsNorth Carolina Botanical GardenUniversity of North Carolina - Chapel HillCB# 3375, Totten CenterChapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3375

Mr. Patrick Morgan, DirectorThe South Carolina Nature ConservancyP.O. Box 5475Columbia, South Carolina 29250

Dr. Bert PittmanSouth Carolina Department of

Natural ResourcesHeritage Trust ProgramP.O. Box 167Columbia, South Carolina 29202

Mr. Joe JacobThe Nature ConservancyP.O. Box 2267Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514*Dr. John B. NelsQn

Herbarium CuratorDepartment of Biological SciencesUniversity of South CarolinaColumbia, South Carolina 29208

Mr. Michael LipfordThe Nature Conservancy1233A Cedars CourtCharlottesville, Virginia 22903

23

Ms. Lonnette G. EdwardsUSDAFS - SEFESDepartment of ForestryClemson UniversityClemson, South Carolina 29634-1003

Ms. Janet ShipleyNorth Carolina Department of

Transportati onPlanning and Environmental BranchP.O. Box 25201Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

Mr. Rob SutterThe Nature ConservancyP.O. Box 2267Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Mr. Bob McCartneyWood1 anders1128 Colleton AvenueAiken, South Carolina 29801

Mr. Ed FriersonSouth Carolina Department of Highways

and Public TransportationP.O. Box 191Columbia, South Carolina 29202*Dr. Lynn Wike

Savannah River Technology CenterBuilding 773-42AAiken, South Carolina 29802

Mr. Rich OwingsNorth Carolina ArboretumP.O. Box 6617Asheville, North Carolina 28816

Mr. Robert AbernethyHalliburton Nus Environmental Corporation900 Trail Ridge RoadAiken, South Carolina 29803

Mr. Alan SmithP.O. Box 887Mars Hill, North Carolina 28754

24

Ms. Debra OwenNorth Carolina Department of Environment,

Health, and Natural ResourcesWater Quality Section4401 Reedy Creek RoadRaleigh, North Carolina 27607

U.S. Forest ServiceWildlife. Fisheries, and Range1720 Peachtree Road, NW.Atlanta, Georgia 30367

Ms. Lynette SerlinU.S. Forest ServiceUwharrie National ForestRoute 3, Box 470Troy, North Carolina 27371

Dr. Tom Rawinski and Mr. Chris LudwigVirginia Department of Conservation

and RecreationDivision of Natural HeritageMain Street Station1500 E. Main Street, Suite 312Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dr. Tom PatrickGeorgia Department of Natural ResourcesFreshwater Wetlands and Heritage Inventory2117 U.S. Highway 278, SE.Social Circle, Georgia 30279

Mr. Steven FosterP.O. Box 1343Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702

Mr.’ Jonathan StreichThe Nature Conservancy1401 Peachtree Street, NE., Suite 236Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Mr. Steve BrownU.S. Army Corps of EngineersFalls Lake Management Center11405 Falls of the Neuse RoadWake Forest, North Carolina 27587

Ms. Cindy GoodwinU.S. Forest Service508 Oak Street, NWGainesville, Georgia 30501

25

Mr. Patrick JacksonDepartment of EnergySavannah River Operations OfficeEnvironmental Programs BranchP.O. Box AAiken, South Carolina 29802

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Alabama Natural Heritage ProgramDepartment of Conservation and

Natural Resources64 North Union Street. Room 752Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Dr. Susan H. Lathrop, Executive DirectorAmerican Association of Botanical

Gardens and Arboreta, Inc.786 Church RoadWayne, Pennsylvania 19087*Dr. Janice Coffey Swab

Conservation CommitteeAmerican Society of Plant TaxonomistsMeredith CollegeHunter Hall3800 Hillsborough StreetRaleigh, North Carolina 27607-5298

Center for Plant ConservationMissouri Botanical GardenP.O. Box 299St. Louis, Missouri 63166

Environmental Protection AgencyHazard Evaluation Division - EEB (T5769C)401 M Street, SW.Washington, DC 20460

Project Manager (7507C)Environmental Protection AgencyEndangered Species Protection ProgramEnvironmental Fate and Effects DivisionOffice of Pesticide Programs401 M Street, SW.Washington, DC 20460

The Garden Club of America598 Madison AvenueNew York, New York 10022

26

Department of BotanyNational Museum of Natural HistorySmithsonian InstitutionWashington, DC 20560

The Nature Conservancy2821 2nd Avenue, South, #CBirmingham, Alabama 35233-2811

The Nature ConservancyEastern Regional Office201 Devonshire Street, 5th FloorBoston, Massachusetts 02110

The Nature Conservancy1815 N. Lynn StreetArlington, Virginia 22209

New England Wildflower Society,Garden in the WoodsHemenway RoadFramington, Massachusetts 01701

Inc.

*Dr Peter White, DirectorNorth Carolina Botanical GardenUniversity of North Carolina - Chapel HillCB# 3375, Totten CenterChapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3375

Mr. Jim Burnette, Jr.North Carolina Department ofPesticide SectionP.O. Box 27647Raleigh, North Carolina 27611*Dr. Gary B. Blank

North Carolina State UniversityBox 8002Raleigh, North Carolina

Agriculture

27695- 8002

Mr. Randy C. Wilson, Section ManagerNongame and Endangered Wildlife and

Permits SectionNorth Carolina WildlifeArchdale Building512 N. Salisbury StreetRaleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188

Resources Commission

27

Program ManagerDivision of Boating and Inland FisheriesNorth Carolina Wildlife Resources CommissionArchdale Building512 N. Salisbury StreetRaleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188

Mr. Glen GainesSavannah River Forest StationP.O. Box 710New Ellenton, South Carolina 29841

Mr. Larry RobinsonU.S. Soil Conservation Service1835 Assembly Street, Room 950Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Ms. Pat StrakaWestvaco CorporationP.O. Box 1950Summerville, South Carolina 29484*Dr. Harriet Gillett

World Conservation Monitoring Centre219 Huntingdon RoadCambridge CB3 ODLUnited Kingdom

Traffic U.S.A.World Wildlife Fund1250 24th Street, NW., Suite 500Washington, DC 20037*Dr. Tom Waldrop

U.S. Forest ServiceSoutheastern Forest Experiment StationDepartment of Forest ResourcesClemson UniversityClemson, South ~Carolina 29634*Dr. Joan Walker

U.S. Forest ServiceSoutheastern Forest Experiment StationDepartment of Forest ResourcesClemson UniversityClemson, South Carolina 29634

Mr. Ed BelmonteHarza Engineering233 South Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60606-6392

28

Mr. Don GoodeEnvironmental Protection AgencyPesticide Section345 Courtland StreetAtlanta, Georgia 30365

Mr. John Geddie8040 Bellamah Court, NE.Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110

Mr. David EdelmanBureau of Forest ManagementCN404Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Ms. Leslie KarauTranscontinental Gas PipelinePermits Group2800 Post Oak BoulevardP.O. Box 1396Houston, Texas 77251-1396

Mr. Fred C. SchmidtHead, Documents Department - KSThe LibrariesColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado 80523-1019

Mr. Alan MitchnickHL-20.2Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionOffice of Hydropower Licensing825 North Capitol Street, NE.Washington, DC 20426

Mr. Andrew HainesSenior Project ScientistRoy F. Weston, Inc.Life Systems DepartmentBuilding 5-11 Weston WayWest Chester, Pennsylvania 19380

Mr. Matthew Barnett-Lawrence2339 Jo Mac RoadChapel Hill, North Carolina 27516

29

Mr. Mark A. DuttonChief, Natural Resources BranchDepartment of the ArmyHeadquarters, U.S. Army Training

Center and Fort JacksonFort Jackson, South Carolina 29207

Mr. Chris J. IngramVice-PresidentGeo-Marine, Inc.6554 Florida Boulevard,Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Mr. Thomas A. WojtalikEnvi ronmental EngineerMRSK- CTennessee Valley Authority1101 Market StreetChattanooga~ Tennessee

Suite 21570806

37402 -2801

Mr. Vernon OsteenWestinghouse - SavannahBuilding 742-AP.O. Box 616Aiken. South Carolina 29801

River Company

DA, HQ, VSATC and Fort JacksonAHENTION: AT2J-PWN-NR

Bruce ColeFort Jackson, South Carolina

Ms. Alice L. GustinPublisher/EditorLand Use ChronicleP.O. Box 468Riverton, Wyoming

29207-5670

82501

* Independent peer reviewers

30

APPENDIX

Insect Visitors to Echinacea laevigata

9 November1993

TO: CarlenEmanuel,Departmentof ForestResources,261 LehotskyHallFROM: Kevin Hoffman,Departmentof Entomology,114 Long Hall

Enclosedare the insectsyou broughtoversometime agofor identification. I’ve dividedthemout into separatevials for eachspeciesandenclosedanidentificationlabel,andI’vebandedtogethermultiple vials which carrie out of a singlesamplevial (1-7). As you’llnoticebelow, the immaturesof many insectscan’tbe reliably identified pastfamily withthe availableliterature.

Order Family Genusspecies

Vial 1 - Lepidoptera

Vial 2 - Lepidoptera

Vial 3 - HomopteraHeteropteraColeoptera

Vial 4 - Coleoptera

Orthoptera

Vial 5 - Coleoptera

Vial 6 - LepidopteraHomoptera

Zygaenidae

Geometridae

FlatidaeReduviidaeNitidulidae

Cantharidae

Acrididae

Cerambycidae

NymphalidaeFlatidae

AcoloithusfalsariusClemens

undetermined

undeterminedpossiblySineasp.Meli2ethessp.,

possiblynigrescensStephensChaulio~nathusmar~inatus Fabricius

Melanoplusbivittatus(Say)

Tvpocerusz~~:a (Olivier)

undeterminedundetermined

1 male

1 larva5 nymphs

2 nymphs

1 adult1 adult

1 male

2 adults

7 larvae1 nymph

Vial 7 - LepidopteraHymenopteraHyrnenopteraHvmenopteraH ymenoptera

HesperildaeApidaeHalictidaeHalictidaeHalictidae

Politesorigenes(Fabricius)Apis mellifera LinnacusA 2apostemumvirescens(Fabricius)Au~och1ore1lastriata (Provancher)Halictusijg~ms Say

~Takenfrom Edwards and Madsen.

lmale1 workerI female1 female1 female

1993)

31