weet Pitcher Plant erv Plan - Herbarium - North Carolina State ...

Iweet Pitcher Planterv Plan~)

RECOVERY PLANforMountain Sweet Pitcher Plant(Sarracenia rubra ssp. jones ii (Wherry] Wherry)Preparedby:Nora MurdockAsheville Field OfficeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSoutheast RegionAtlanta, GeorgiaApproved:ServiceDate:August 13, 1990

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which 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 aDoroved. Approved recoveryplans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings,changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.Literature citations should read as follows:U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Mountain Sweet Pitcher PlantRecovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 39 pp.Additional copies of this plan may be purchased from:Fish and Wildlife Reference Service5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110Bethesda, Maryland 20814Phone: 301/492-6403 or1 -800/582-3421The fee for a plan varies depending on the number of pages in theplan.

:EXECUTIVE SUMMARYCurrent SDecies Status: Sarracenia rubra ssp. ionesii is listed asendangered. There are 10 populations remaining, all within NorthCarolina and South Carolina; 16 sites have been destroyed. Most ofthe surviving populations are small, and many have been adverselyaltered by flooding or drainage for recreational, industrial, oragricultural development. Three of the South Carolina sites havebeen acquired by the State; none of the North Carolina populationsare permanently protected. Plant succession threatens allpopul at ions.Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: This insectivorousspecies is native to bogs and a few streamsides in the Blue RidgeMountains of North Carolina and South Carolina. Other (coastalplain) species of this genus are known to benefit from periodic fire,which reduces woody competition; however there is some evidence thatthis mountain species may actually be harmed by fire. More researchon management and biological requirements of the species is needed.Mountain sweet pitcher plant is also seriously threatened bycollectors.Recovery Objective:DelistingRecovery Criteria: Four self-sustaining populations within eachoccupied drainage must be permanently protected.Actions needed1. Survey suitable habitat for additional populations.2. Monitor and protect existing populations.3. Conduct research on the biology of the species.4. Establish new populations or rehabilitate marginal populations tothe point where they are self-sustaining.5. Investigate and conduct necessary management activities at allkey sites.Total Estimated Cost of Recovery: Because so little is known aboutactions needed to recover this species, it is impossible to determinecosts beyond estimates for the first few years’ work (in 1,000’s):Year Need I Need 2 t~j~ tii~A ~ I~Lii1990 20 4 54 5 3.5 86.51991 10 3 38 25 2 181992 10 2 18 11 1 4819931994199519961997199819992000Date of RecoveryImpossible to determineat this time.

PART I:TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION 1Current and Historical Distribution 1Description, Ecology, and Life History 2Threats and Population Limiting Factors 6Conservation Efforts 8PacePART II:RECOVERY i• (‘A. Recovery Objectives 10 ~B. Narrative OutlineC. Literature Cited 7PARTPARTIII:IMPLEMENTATIONIV:SCHEDULELIST OF REVIEWERS

PARTIINTRODUCTIONMountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra Walter ssp. ionesii[Wherry]Wherry) is a rare insectivorous plant native to bogs in the BlueRidge Mountains of North Carolina and South Carolina. Due to its rarityand vulnerability to threats, the species was federally listed asendangered on September 30, 1988 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988).Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii is officially listed (as Sarraceniaionesii) as “endangered - special concern” by the North CarolinaDepartment of Agriculture’s Plant Conservation Program (North CarolinaPlant Conservation Program, 1990). The species is recognized in SouthCarolina (as Sarracenia j~gj~j•j) as “endangered and of national concern”by the South Carolina Comittee on Rare, Threatened, and Endangeredplants (Rayner ~ j]. 1984). It is included in Appendix I of theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora(CITES).Current and Historical DistributionMountain sweet pitcher plant Is endemic to a few mountain bogs andstreams in southwestern North Carolina and northwestern South Carolinaalong the Blue Ridge Divide. Only 10 populations are currently known toexist--four are in the French Broad River drainage in Henderson and— Transylvania Counties, North Carolina, five are in the Saluda River

drainage in Greenville County, South Carolina, and one is in the EnoreeRiver drainage in Greenville County, South Carolina. The species hasalso been reported from Buncombe County in North Carolina, but it is notcurrently known to survive there. Sixteen populations have beenextirpated. Because of the extreme rarity of this species and itsvulnerability to collectors, locations of extant populations are notspecified in this plan.Descriotion. Ecology, and Life HistoryMountain sweet pitcher plant is one of eight species in the genusSarracenia which occur primarily on the coastal plain of the SoutheasternUnited States (Bell 1949). Only ~. r. ssp. lonesli, j. Q~QRi~jJ.j, and.~. ~rn.ur~.i occur outside the coastal plain (McDaniel 1971). ~. r.ionesii is widely disjunct from the other members of the ~. rubrassp.complex. ~. ~j.L~jis the only sympatric Sarracenia that shares themontane habitat of mountain sweet pitcher plant. The taxonomy of thisgenus is extremely complex, with extensive natural hybridizationdocumented (Bell 1952, McDaniel 1971). There has been substantialdisagreement about the taxonomic classification of Sarracenia rukri ssp..ionesii, with different authors having treated It as a regional variant(McDaniel 1971), a form (Bell 1949), a subspecies (Wherry 1972; Schnell1977, 1918), and as a distinct species (Wherry 1929, Case and Case 1976,McDaniel 1986). Nomenclature in this plan follows the most recentlypublisheddetermination.2

Sarracenia rubra ssp. i.w3i~iJ. was first described by E. T. Wherry (1929)from material collected in North Carolina in 1920. It is aninsectivorous, rhizomatous, perennial herb, which grows from 21 to 73 cm(8.3 to 28.7 inches) tall. The numerous erect leaves grow in clustersand are hollow and trumpet-shaped, forming slender, almost tubularpitchers (inspiration for the most frequently used common name) coveredby a cordate hood. The pitchers are a waxy dull green, usuallyreticulate-veined with maroon-purple. The tube of the pitchers isretrorsely hairy within and often partially filled with liquid anddecayed insect parts. The uniquely showy and fragrant flowers haverecurving sepals, are borne singly on erect scapes, and are usuallymaroon in color. The species blooms from April to June, with fruitsripening in August (Massey j~ jI. 1983, Wood 1960).Like many other species in this genus, mountain sweet pitcher plant showssome variation within and between populations, probably due to bothgenetic and environmental differences. Plants growing In shade tend tobe less erect and much less conspicuously color-veined. Variations incolor extend to a yellow-flowered form of this species reported by Caseand Case (1976). Reproduction is by seeds or by fragmentation ofrhizomes (Massey ~jil. 1983, Wood 1960); individual rhizomes have beenreported to live intact for 20 to 35 years (MacFarlane 1908, McDaniel1971, F. Case, Saginaw, Michigan, pers. cow., 1990).Sarracenia rubra ssp. j.Qflitlj. can be distinguished from other subspeciesof Sarracenia rubra by its greater pitcher height, scape length equal to3

pitcher height, long petiole, abruptly expanded pitcher orifice, cordateand slightly reflexed hood, and petals and capsules which are usuallytwice as large as other Sarracenia rubra (Massey it~ al. 1983, Sutter1987, Case and Case 1976, Wherry 1929).Other common names of pitcher plants include trumpets, bugle-grass,bog-bugles, dumb-watches, watches, buttercups, Eve’s cups, biscuitflowers, frog bonnets, fly bugles, and huntsman’ 5 cups (Wood 1960,Radford et al. 1964, Massey ~i a].. 1983). The many common names areillustrative of the fascination engendered by these unique organisms.The evolutionary role of carnivory in such plants is not fullyunderstood, but some evidence indicates that absorption of minerals frominsect prey may allow carnivorous species to compete in nutrient-poorhabitats (Folkerts 1977). Insects are attracted by nectar secreted fromglands near the pitcher orifice, or by the plant’s coloration, and fallor crawl into the pitchers. Just Inside the mouth of the pitcher tube isa very smooth surface, offering no foothold to most insects; below this,the pitcher is lined with stiff downward-pointing hairs which assistdescent and virtually prevent ascent. Those insects which cannot escapeare eventually digested by enzymes in the fluid secreted inside thepitchers (Folkerts 1977, McDaniel 1971, Givnish 1988).The habitat of mountain sweet pitcher plant consists of mountain bogs andstreamsides, usually on soils of the Toxaway silt loam or Hatboro loamseries. These soils are deep, poorly drained combinations of loam, sand,and silt, with a high organic matter content and medium to highly acidic4

,pH. Most sites occur in level depressions associated with floodplains;however, a few occur in “cataract bog” or “waterslide” situations, wheresphagnum and other typical bog species line the sides of waterfalls ongranite rock faces. The hydrology of the sites can be described asintermittently exposed to intermittently flooded (Schafale and Weakley1985, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1980).Bogs occupied by this species are typically dominated by herbs and shrubsbut may have scattered trees such as red maple (~j~ rubrum), hemlock(Tsuaa canadensis), pitch pine (Pinus rioida), white pine (Pinusstrobus), and, at high elevations, red spruce (Picea rubens). A denseshrub understory often alternates with open patches of sedges, forbs, andsphagnum. Dominant shrub species include poison sumac (Rhus vernix)alder (Alnus serrulata), willow (~jIj~ ~j.rj.~ji and ~. humilis)chokeberry (Sorbus arbutifolla), rhododendron (B. maximum), azalea(R. viscosum), swamp rose ~ .RjJjJItrj~j, viburnum (!. ~iiii.n~i.d~J,lambkill (Kalmia anaustifolla), mountain laurel (~. latifolia)St. John’s-wort (Hvoericum ~i~jj.fl2~gm), male-berry (LxRnii Iigiii~r.tniJ,and minnie-bush (~~jjjjj nJ.121A). Herbs Include sedges (~.a.r~xleDtalea, ~. muricata, ~. fRJJj.2II~j, and occasionally ~. ~11iniii.),twigrush (~]j~jjjgj mirjj~p.j~i), beak rush (Bj~ .~grj iLba) 9 bulrush(ScirDus ~j~j), golden ragwort (~n~jg jjj~gjjj), marsh fern(Thelvoteris ~jLj~j~), rush (,~jm.gj~ IffIL~Mj), Gray’s lily (Lilium aravi(a category 2 candidate for Federal listing]), grass-of-Parnassus(Parnassia orandifolla), cotton grass (~rj2~.grjjjn .~j.rgjnj.gim), saxifrage(Saxifraoa Densvlvanica), cowbane (Q~.y~]j.j rialdior), coreopsis5

,(r.niii ~1n~i..a.ti),skunk cabbage ~ J~j~pjjj fQjj~j), golden club(Orontium aouaticum), and sphagnum(~. Dalustre, ~. imbricatumS. bartlettianum, and S. recurvum). Other dominant bryophytes includePolytrichum commune, Mnium aDDalachianum, Aulacaomnium oalustre, andBazzania trilobata (Schafale and Weakley 1985).These shrub-dominated communities are early successional types and mustbe maintained at this disclimax in order for mountain sweet pitcherplants to thrive. Historically the bogs probably were kept open bysevere droughts, water fluctuation, periodic fires, ice damage, climaticextremes, and other forms of natural disturbance. In the South, otherspecies of the genus Sarracenia are well adapted to moderate fires whichremove old growth, reduce competition, and help induce flowering(McDaniel 1971). In recent times widespread fire suppression hasresulted in substantial changes to much Sarracenia habitat. Moreinformation is needed on the relationship (if any) between mountain sweetpitcher plant and natural fire.The Sarracenias form the exclusive food for a number of moths includingOlethreutes (which feeds upon the flowers and seeds), .EiR.ai.~mA (arhizome-borer), and three species of j~y~ (which eat the leaves). Otherinsects are known to live in the pitchers, including two harmless speciesof mosquito, a Sarcophagan fly, a gnat, and a Sciarid fly (Wood 1960,Folkerts 1982). There may be some insect species restricted toS. r. ssp. ~onesii,in which case, they also are in danger of extinction(Thomas Gibson, University of Wisconsin, pers. comm., 1990).6

Threats and PoDulation Limiting FactorsThe most serious threat to mountain sweet pitcher plant is thedestruction or degradation of its small wetland habitats, which hasalready resulted in the elimination of the species from 62 percent of theknown originally occupied sites. Sixteen populations have beenextirpated due to drainage; impoundment; cultivation and intensivegrazing; natural succession; and development for recreational,residential, and industrial facilities. The single most significantthreat to this plant is recreational development (particularly golfcourses).The importance of moderate periodic fires to other members of this genusis well documented for coastal plain species (McDaniel 1971, Folkerts1977, Barker and Williamson 1988); fire is necessary to reduce theencroachment of competing plants and to stimulate the growth of pitcherplants and many other bog inhabitants. Decades of fire suppression haveresulted in heavy litter accumulations, which In turn can fuelcatastrophic wildflres that damage or kill species normally considered tobe fire tolerant. Such fires, coupled with prior drainage, can lead tothe complete elimination of these carnivorous species from a site withina decade (Folkerts 1977). The role played by fire in the montane habitatof ~. r.ssp. j.g~jjjJ~ is not known; although wildfires may have servedhistorically to create openings for colonization, there is some evidencethat direct burning of this subspecies may be detrimental (F. Case, pers.comm., 1990).7

Channelization of adjacent streams can result in destruction ofhydrological integrity, even if the bog itself is not directly targeted.The deepening and widening of the stream channel often causes a loweringof the local water table, which results in drying of the bog habitat andacceleration of shrub succession. Site conversion to “productive” uses,such as row crops or improved pasture, usually follows. Manyhistorically known populations have been destroyed by this means.In addition to maintaining open habitat, severe drought is also apotential threat; the effects of the successive drought years of 1986,1987, and 1988, on this species are presently unknown. However, therehave been observations of populations being decimated by severe droughtin the late 1970’s, then later recovering to former vigor (T. Gibson andF. Case, pers. comm., 1990). It is not known if the plants in suchpopulations survive as rhizomes or if they recolonize the habitat fromseedbanks.Collecting by amateur plant enthusiasts, professional botanists, andcommercial horticulturists continues to be a problem for carnivorousplants, even though cultivated sources are available for almost allspecies. Recently, additional pressure on the Sarracenlas (Including~. iM~~h~].1L, a category 2 candIdate for Federal listing (BruceMacBryde, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. corn. 1990]) has comefrom commercial florists who use the dried “pitchers’ in floralarrangements. A counterpoint to this perceived threat is that thecommercial demand for pitchers has resulted in some landowners’ placing8

increased value on their pitcher plant bogs, preserving the habitat andmanaging it for the benefit of the species (F. Case, pers. comm., 1990).However, for species like mountain sweet pitcher plant, with very fewwild populations remaining, indiscriminate collecting could easily resultin the extinction of the species.Many of the remaining mountain sweet pitcher plant sites are in closeC-proximity to agricultural fields, pastures, and orchards. Accidentalherbicide drift or runoff from these areas, or from adjacent power linemaintenance operations, could result In damage or destruction of thesetiny populations. To protect the plants at these sites, it will beimportant to encourage adjacent landowners to use herbicides with extremecare and at the lowest effective application rates, avoiding aerialapplications whenever possible. In addition to threats from herbicides,fertilizer runoff can put unwanted nutrients in the bog, enrich the soil,and cause pitcher plants to rot (T. Gibson, pers. coun., 1990), as wellas potentially causing adverse pH alterations.ConservationEffortsEight of the 10 remaining populations of mountain sweet pitcher plant arelocated on privately owned lands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,along with the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department,the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, andthe North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, Is working with theseprivate landowners to protect and manage the sites. One of the North‘C-9

Carolina sites is now a Registered State Natural Area, and the owners aremanaging the land for the benefit of the species. One of the SouthCarolina sites is owned by the South Carolina Department of Parks,Recreation, and Tourism, which is aware of the presence of the plants andis protecting them. Two additional sites in that State have beenacquired by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department,and negotiations are currently underway for acquisition of a third.Conservation agencies in both States, along with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, are actively conducting surveys of potential habitat inhopes of finding and protecting additional populations ofS. r. ssp. lonesii or of finding good sites for reintroduction.10

PART IIRECOVERYA. Recovery ObjectivesMountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii) will beconsidered for delisting when there are at least four self-sustainingpopulations within each occupied drainage (French Broad, Enoree, andSaluda Rivers) that are protected to such a degree that thesubspecies no longer qualifies for protection under the EndangeredSpecies Act (see criteria below). A self-sustaining population is areproducing population that is large enough to maintain sufficientgenetic variation to enable it to survive and respond to habitatchanges. The number of individuals necessary (determined at least inpart through genetic analysis) and the quantity and quality ofhabitat needed to meet this criterion will be determined as one ofthe recoverytasks.This recovery objective is considered an Interim goal, because of thelack of specific data on biology and management requirements of thespecies. The goal may be adjusted up or down at a later date asadditional information is acquired that allows for refinement of theestimate of populations required to ensure the continued survival ofmountain sweet pitcher plant. This objective will be reassessed at11

least annually in light of any new information that becomesavailable.The first step toward recovery will be protection and management ofall extant populations of mountain sweet pitcher plant to ensuretheir continued survival. Although biological requirements for someof the other species in this genus have been studied, little is knownabout S. r. ssp. jonesii. Therefore, before extrapolating managementrecommendations for other species to this one, it will be necessaryto conduct detailed demographic studies and ecological research forthe purpose of gaining the understanding needed to developappropriate protection and management strategies. The ultimateeffects of various kinds of habitat disruption must be determined andprevented; active management necessary to ensure continued survivaland vigor must be defined and carried out. Therefore, mountain sweetpitcher plant shall be considered for removal from the Federal listwhen the following criteria are met:1. It has been documented that at least four populations within eachoccupied drainage (Enoree, French Broad, and Saluda Rivers) areself-sustaining and that necessary management actions have beenundertaken by the landowners or cooperating agencies to ensuretheir continued survival.12

2. All 12 of the above populations and their habitat are protectedfrom present and foreseeable human-related and natural threatsthat may interfere with the survival of any of the populations.13

B. Narrative Outline1. Protect existing DoDulations and essential habitat. Only10 populations of mountain sweet pitcher plant are currentlyknown to exist, all within the Blue Ridge Mountains of NorthCarolina and South Carolina. Until more is known about thespecies’ biology and specific habitat requirements, and about themeasures necessary to protect the hydrology of occupied sites,all existing populations should be protected. The long-termsurvival of 12 populations (approximately 40 percent of thosehistorically known) in three watersheds (requiringreestablishment or discovery of additional populations) isbelieved to be essential to the recovery of the species as awhole.1.1 DeveloD interim research and manaaement olans in coniunctionwith landowners. Except for extrapolation from studies ofother species in this genus, little Is known about specificmanagement practices necessary to ensure the long-termsurvival of mountain sweet pitcher plant. Therefore,immediate emphasis will be on protection (e.g., preventionof drainage and other site alterations which are known to bedetrimental), In cooperation with the landowners, untilappropriate management procedures have been developedthrough research. Ongoing experiments being conducted incooperation with one private landowner in North Carolina14

involve cutting of competing shrubs followed by prescribedburning. Pre- and post-management demographic studies, aswell as maintenance of control plots, should provideimportant insights into management needs at this and othermountain sweet pitcher plant sites.For populations in close proximity to areas where pesticidesare used, landowners should be encouraged to use only themost target-specific herbicides available, at the lowesteffective application rates, and to avoid aerialapplications. Monitoring of these populations shouldinclude data on the distance from nearest agricultural orright-of-way area, type of pesticide used, and number ofapplications of each. Site protection plans should takeinto account topographic features and drainage systems thatwould facilitate movement of pesticide residues fromadjacent treated areas to the low-lying areas inhabited bymountain sweet pitcher plant.1.2 Search for additional DoDulations. Although severalintensive searches for mountain sweet pitcher plant havebeen conducted within parts of the historic habitat, athorough systematic effort to locate additional populationsis still needed (very small populations, consisting of onlya few plants, particularly at overgrown sites, are easilymissed in less intensive efforts). The North Carolina15

Natural Heritage Program recently funded a survey ofC- mountain bogs in the State, which will include documentationof all rare species found. Searches should be preceded byan examination of soil and topographic maps and aerialphotographs to determine potential habitat and to develop apriority list of sites to search.1.3 Determine habitat Drotection Driorities. Because of thesmall number of existing populations and the pervasivethreats to the habitat, it is essential to protect as manyas possible. However, efforts should be concentrated firston the sites in protective ownership, or where currentprivate landowners are cooperative, and where the largestand most vigorous populations occur. This strategy is beingfollowed in acquisition efforts currently underway by theSouth Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. Anunderstanding of natural bog formation and destructionprocesses and longevity is also essential to this effort.In ‘last resort” situations where a population is imminentlythreatened and all other methods of protecting the habitathave failed, plans for inunediate rescue of the plants shouldbe devised.1.4 Evaluate habitat Drotection alternatives. The greatestpossible protection should be obtained for those existingpopulations which are considered critical to the recovery of16

mountain sweet pitcher plant. Fee simple acquisition orconservation easements provide the greatest degree ofprotection. However, it is unknown as yet how much bufferland around each population is necessary to protect thehydrological integrity of occupied sites. Protectionthrough management agreements or short-term leases mayprovide adequate short-term protection but should only beconsidered as intermediate steps in the process ofultimately providing for permanent protection. Short-termprotection strategies may be necessary if private landownersare not agreeable to, or monies are not available for,acquisition of conservation easements, hydrologic easement,or fee simple title. Conservation agreements with adjacentlandowners or owners of rights-of-way (power companies)should be developed to prevent inadvertent adversealterations of the habitat.2. Determine and imolement manaaement necessary for lono-termreoroduction. establishment. maintenance, and vigor. Protectionof habitat for ~. r. ssp. J~jjjj is the obvious first step inensuring its long-term survival, but this alone will not besufficient. Even though initial emphasis will be on protectingexisting populations, reintroduction of the species to sites fromwhich it has been extirpated will also be pursued. Although Caseand Case (1976) state that members of the Sarracenia rukricomplex are somewhat more shade tolerant than other species in17

.this genus, management of the habitat will undoubtedly benecessary to allow mountain sweet pitcher plant to successfullyperpetuate its life cycle over the long term. However,additional information on the population biology and ecology ofthis rare plant is necessary before effective managementguidelines can be formulated and implemented.2.1 Determine DoDulation size and stage-class distribution forall Dopulations. Population size and stage-classdistribution data are essential to predicting what factorsmay be necessary for populations to become self-sustaining(Menges 1987). Data on these characteristics are needed forthe existing populations and for any newly discoveredpopulations.2.2 Study abiotic and biotic features of the sDecies’ habitatAn understanding of the hydrology of the habitats occupiedby mountain sweet pitcher plant is essential to thelong-term survival and recovery of mountain sweet pitcherplant. Monitoring studies should include populations withina wide range of habitats, both altered and undisturbed,since population dynamics may vary within these differenthabitats. Permanent plots should be selected andestablished to determine the relationship between abioticfactors (such as soil depth and type, frequency and depth ofinundation, and light Intensity) and biotic factors (such as18

eproduction, germination, and degree of competition andpredation). This information is necessary to determineappropriate timing and type of management for ensuring thecontinued vigor of existing populations and to accuratelyselect good potential sites for reintroduction.The vectors of seed dispersal must be determined and theireffectiveness under different ecological and spatialconditions assessed. At least some seed dispersal is bywater; however, little else is known, including how farseeds can be dispersed by this vector and others and whatconditions are optimal for dispersal. Major pollinatorsneed to be determined and protected. Bumblebees have beenobserved to be the major pollinators for some other speciesin the ~ yj~~j complex (Case and Case 1976), butthe pollinators and pollination mechanisms of ~. r. ssp.jonesii remain unidentified. The relative importance ofsexual and vegetative reproduction to the long-term survivalof mountain sweet pitcher plant Is unknown and must bedetermined for effective management and protection to takeplace.Relationships with competing species must be investigated.It is believed that competition from invading species wascontrolled historically by some periodic natural disturbancesuch as drought or possibly fire, and by continuous19

saturation of the sites occupied by mountain sweet pitcherplant. However, the effects of and exact interactionsbetween mountain sweet pitcher plant and potentialcompetitors are unknown. This information is essential toaccurate timing (season and frequency) of management such ashand clearing and thinning. Fire should be used withextreme caution, if at all (and only after sufficientexperimentation has proven its suitability for use with thissubspecies). Direct burning has been observed to killcultivated specimens of mountain sweet pitcher plant, whileother Sarracenias growing adjacent to it benefitted(F. Case, pers. comm., 1990).2.3 Conduct lonci-term demoaraDhic studies. Long-termdemographic studies should be conducted In permanent plotslocated within each study site established for habitatanalysis. Plots should be visited annually, for at least5 to 7 consecutive years, after seed set has occurred. Forthis species, one measure of population vigor is anabundance of seedlings and small plants, accompanied byprofuse flowering and large, upright, well-colored leaves(F. Case, pers. con.., 1990). The locations of Individualplants of all stage-classes should be mapped; data should becollected for each mapped plant on sizes of pitchers andinflorescences and seed set. Larger plots, surrounding eachof the smaller, more intensively measured and mapped plots,20

should be monitored for seed germination and seedlingestablishment. Seedlings should be mapped and measured.Any changes in the habitat within each plot (soildisturbance, increases or decreases in light intensity,hydrology, etc.) should be noted at each visit (see Task 2.2on study-site selection).2.4 Determine the effects of oast and onuolno habitatdisturbance. Establishment and long-term monitoring ofpermanent plots may be the most effective means of assessingthe effects of disturbance. Appropriate methodology forthis must be determined but will likely include measurementof many of the parameters specified in Tasks 2.2 and 2.3.Light grazing by cattle has been observed to benefitmountain sweet pitcher plant, when the grazing pressure wasjust enough to suppress shrub succession without destroyingthe surface layer of sphagnum. Intensive pasturing, on theother hand, is detrimental, causing soil compaction anderosion, and raising the pH of the bogs (F. Case, pers.comm., 1990).2.5 Define criteria for self-sustaining DoDulations and develoDaDoroDriate habitat manaciement auldelines based uoon thedata obtained from Tasks 2.2 throuah 2.4. There iscurrently insufficient data to determine what mountain sweetpitcher plant requires in order for populations to be21

self-sustaining. Research as described under Tasks 2.2through 2.4 should provide the information needed to protectand manage occupied habitat so that the continued survivalof healthy populations is assured.2.6 ImDlement aDorooriate manaaement techniques as they aredeveloDed from orevious tasks. In general, mountain sweetpitcher plant seems to benefit from the maintenance of openhabitat. The best technique for accomplishing this withoutharming the plants remains to be determined. Oncemanagement has been implemented, long-term monitoring willhave to be initiated to determine management effects.C-2.7 DeveloD techniques and reestablish DoDulations in suitablehabitat within the sDecies’ historic range. Techniques forseed collection, germination, propagation, andtransplantation of mountain sweet pitcher plant have beendeveloped by several private nurseries and botanicalgardens. Reintroduction efforts will have to be conductedin cooperation with knowledgeable personnel at suchfacilities. Transplant sites In native habitat must beclosely monitored to determine success and to adjust methodsof reestablishment. Many of the tiny populations of ~. r.ssp. j.gni~jj. appear to have been genetically isolated for along time; declines In reproductive vigor observed in thesepopulations may be evidence of inbreeding depression22

.(F. Case, pers. comm., 1990). Genetic research is needed,and experimental outcrossing may be necessary to producemore vigorous propagules for reestablishment of populationsin the wild.3. Develoo a cultivated source of Dlants and provide for long-termseed storage. There are presently several cultivated sources ofmountain sweet pitcher plant, where it is artificially propagatedin a closed cycle. Techniques for seed storage, germination, andmaintenance of cultivated specimens have already been developedby private nurseries and botanical gardens. At least one of thelatter is a cooperator with the Center for Plant Conservation.It is essential to collect and store seed or other live materialfrom all, populations to protect the genetic diversity of thisspecies, since it is so vulnerable to extinction in the wild.Extra care must be taken when maintaining live specimens in longtermcultivation, since many Sarracenias hybridize readily ifkept in close proximity. A ready source of artificiallypropagated material might ease the threat of taking from wildpopulations. However, some believe this may actually increasethe existing demand; more Information is needed on actualreactions of collectors.4. Enforce laws Drotectina the sDecies and/or its habitatPitcher plants have been collected and sold as ornamentalsand curiosities for over a century (Harper 1918),and the23

demand for rare species such as mountain sweet pitcher plantis particularly intense. The Endangered Species Actprohibits taking of Sarracenia rubra ssp. ionesii fromFederal lands without a permit and regulates trade.Section 7 of the Act provides additional protection of thehabitat from impacts related to federally funded orauthorized projects. In addition, for listed plants the 1988amendments to the Act prohibit (1) their malicious damage ordestruction on Federal lands and (2) their removal, cutting,digging, damaging or destroying in knowing violation of anyState law or regulation, including State criminal trespass1 aw.Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Speciesof Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), export/import permits aregenerally required before international shipment of this plantmay occur. Generally, import or export is not allowed forprimarily commercial purposes unless the plants are certified asartificially propagated. In addition, Interstate shipment ofplants taken in violation of any existing laws (including stateand local) becomes a Federal violation under the Lacey Act.The State of North Carolina prohibits taking of the specieswithout a permit and the landowner’s written permission andregulates trade In the species (North Carolina General24

Statute 19-B, 202.12-202.19). The State of South Carolina offersno legal protection for plants.The considerable commercial demand for this rare species hasresulted in removal of large numbers of wild plants and, in somecases, entire seed crops from populations, in spite of lawsprohibiting such practices. Federal and State enforcementagents, whose jurisdiction includes the known range of mountainsweet pitcher plant, should be made aware of this threat and beable to identify specimens.5. Develoo materials to inform the public about the status of thesoecies and the recovery olan obiectives. Public support for theconservation of mountain sweet pitcher plant could play animportant part in encouraging landowner assistance andconservation efforts. In general, information materials shouldnot identify the plant’s locations so as not to increase thethreat of taking from wild populations; alternatively, if demandarises, curious readers could be directed to botanical gardens orto one well-known and easily accessed wild population to take thepressure off other sites. Sources of artificially propagatedmaterial should be made available to collectors.5.1 Preoare and distribute news releases and informationalbrochures. News releases concerning the status andsignificance of mountain sweet pitcher plant and recovery25

.efforts should be prepared and distributed to newspaperswithin its range. Brochures should also be developed anddistributed, detailing the plant’s significance and thethreats to its continued existence.5.2 Preoare articles for DoDular and scientific DublicationsThe need to protect the species in its native habitat andcooperation among local, State, and Federal organizationsand individuals should be stressed. Scientific publicationsshould emphasize additional research that is needed andsolicit research assistance from colleges and universitiesthat have conducted studies on this or closely relatedspecies.6. Annually assess success of recovery efforts for the sDeciesReview of new information, evaluation of ongoing actions, andredirection, if necessary, is essential for assuring that fullrecovery is achieved as quickly and efficiently as possible.26

C. Literature CitedBarker, N. G. and G. B. Williamson. 1988. Effects of a winter fireon Sarracenia alata and S. Dsittacina. Amer. J. Bat. 75:138-143.Bell, C. R. 1949. A cytotaxonomic study of the Sarraceniaceae ofNorth America. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell ScientificSociety 65:131-166.. 1952. Natural hybrids in the genus Sarracenia. I. History,distribution, and taxonomy. Journal of the Elisha MitchellScientific Society 68:55-80.Case, F. and R. Case. 1976. The Sarracenia rubra complex. Rhodora78:270-325.Folkerts, G. 1977. Endangered and threatened carnivorous plants ofNorth America. 1ff Extinction is forever: status of endangeredand threatened plants of the Americas, eds. G. T. Prace andT. S. Elias; New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. Pp. 301-313.. 1982. The gulf coast pitcher plant bogs. AmericanScientist 70:260-261.27

Givnish, T. J. 1988. Ecology and evolution of carnivorous plants.In W.B. Abrahamson (ed.), Plant-Animal Interactions. McGraw-Hill, New York. Pp. 243-290.Harper, R. 1918. The American pitcher-plants. Journal of theElisha Mitchell Scientific Society 34:110-125.MacFarlane, J. 1908. Sarraceniaceae. IN A. Engler, DasDflanzenreich 4:110.Massey, J., 0. Otte, T. Atkinson, and R. Whetstone. 1983. An atlasand illustrated guide to the threatened and endangered vascularplants of the mountains of North Carolina and Virginia. GeneralTechnical Report SE-20. Asheville, North Carolina: USDA ForestService, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. Pp. 156-159.McDaniel, 5. 1971. The genus Sarracenia (Sarraceniaceae). Bulletinof Tall Timbers Research Station 9:36.. 1986. Taxonomic studies of Sarracenia subspecies. Contractreport for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.15 pp.Menges, E. 1987. Predicting the future of rare plant populations:demographic monitoring and modeling. Natural Areas Journal6(3) :13-25.28

North Carolina Plant Conservation Program. 1990. List of NorthCarolina’s Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species.North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC. 18 pp.Radford, A., H. Ahles, and C. Bell. 1964. Manual of the vascularflora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press,Chapel Hill. Pp. 511-512.Rayner, D., C. Aulbach-Smith, W. Batson, and C. Rodgers. 1984.Native vascular plants--rare, threatened or endangered--in SouthCarolina. South Carolina Advisory Committee on Rare, Threatenedand Endangered Vascular Plants. Columbia, South Carolina.25 pp.Schafale, M. and A. Weakley. 1985. Classification of the naturalcommunities of North Carolina, second approximation. NorthCarolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh (unpublished).Schnell, D. 1917. Infraspecific variation in ~nrri~ji rubraWalter: some observations. Castanea 42:149-170.. 1978. Sarracenia i~jkyj Walter: infraspecific nomenclaturalcorrection. Castanea 43:260-261.Sutter, R. 1987. Sarracenia .ionesii species account. NorthCarolina Plant Conservation Program. 4 pp.29

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1980.Soil survey of Henderson County, North Carolina. 89 pp.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Endangered and threatenedwildlife and plants; determination of endangered status forSarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii (mountain sweet pitcher plant).Federal Register 53(190) :38470-38474.Wherry, E. 1929. Acidity relations of the Sarracenia. Journal ofthe Washington Academy of Science 19:379-390.. 1972. Notes on Sarracenia subspecies. Castanea37(.~) :146-147.Wood, C. 1960. The genera of Sarraceniaceae and Droseraceae in theSoutheastern United States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum(XLI) :152-163.30

PARTIIIIMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULEPriorities in column one of the following implementation schedule areassigned as follows:1. Priority 1 - An action that must be taken to prevent extinctionor to prevent the species from declining irreversibly in theforeseeable future.2. Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent asignificant decline in species population/habitat quality orsome other significant negative impact short of extinction.3. Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to meet the recoveryobjective.Key to Acronyms Used in This ImDlementation ScheduleFWE - Fish and Wildlife EnhancementFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceLE - Law Enforcement, FWSPA - Public Affairs Office, FWSSCA - State Conservation Agencies: State Plant conservation agencies ofparticipating states. In North Carolina, these are the PlantConservation Program (North Carolina Department of Agriculture) andthe Natural Heritage Program (North Carolina Department ofEnvironment, Health, and Natural Resources); in South Carolina, theHeritage Trust Program (South Carolina Wildlife and MarineResources Department).31

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULEr —I I I I I RESPONSIBLE PARTY ICOST ESTIMATES (S000’S)jI •I I TASK F ~-• 1IPRIOR-i I TASK IDURATION,I FWS •~ FY jFY , FYI ITY I I TASK I I DESCRIPTION I (Years) I Region Program I Other 1991 I 1992 I 1993 I COIIIENTSt * + + * * * I. * * •11 11.1 IDevelopinteri, 2 g 4 IFWE ISCA I 5.0 I 5.0 I I II I Iresearchand I I I I I I .1 IImanagementplans I I I I I I I IIlNcon.Junction I I I I II Iwithiandowners. I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I II 3 I 1.2 g Search for g 3 4 FWE SCA g 20.0 I 10.0 I 10.0 I II I ladditional I I I I I I I IIpopulations. I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II 1 I 1.3 I Determine habitat 1 4 FIlE I SCA I 1.0 I -~ I --- II Iprotection I I I I I I II I I priorities. I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II 1 1.4 Evaluate habitat g 2 I 4 I FWE I SCA I 1.0 1.0 I ——— II I I protection I I I I I I. I I II I I priorities. I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II 2 12.1 IDeterminepopula- 12 I 4 I FlEE ISCA 115.0 115.0 I -- I, II I Isizeandstage- I I I I I I I I II I I class distributionl I I I I I I I II I I forall I I I I I I I I II I Ipopulations. I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II 2 12.2 g Studyabloticand1 5 I 4 I FlEE ISCA 110.0 I 8.0 I 8.0 I II I I blotlcfeaturesofl I I i gI I Ithespecies’ I I I I I I I I II Ihabitat. I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I.1 I J( (

( IMPLEMEt( 3M SCHEDULE (r 1I I I I g RESPONSIBLE PARTY gCOST ESTIMATES (SOOO’S)II I I TASK ~ *iPRIOR- I TASK DURATION MIS I FY FY I FY I IITY I I TASK I I DESCRIPTION I (Years) Region I Program I Other I 1991 I 1992 I 1993 I COMMENTSI * * * * * * * * * * ~1I 2 12.3 I Conduct long-ter.~ 5 I 4 I FlEE I SCA 116.0 I 6.0 I 6.0 I II Idemographic I I I II I I I II I I studies. I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I j2 12.4 IDeterulinethe 13 I 4 IFWE ISCA 18.014.014.01 II I Ieffectsofpast I I I I I I I Ilandongoing i I I I Ihabitat I I I I II I disturbance. I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I 12 p2.5 IDefinecriterla gI I 4 FlEE gSCA I---I---I5.oi II I Iforseif— —l ~ I sustaining popula-~ I I I I I I I II I Itionsanddevelop 1 I I I I I I I II lappropriate I I I I I I I I II I I habitat management, I I I I I I I II I ~guidelinesbasedI I I I I I I I II I luponthedata I I I I I I I I II I Iobtalnedfrom I I I I I I I I, II I ITasks2.2 I I I I I I I I II I Ithrough2.4. I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I12 12.6 Ilmplementappro-IUnknown, 4 FlEE ISCA I? I? I? I II I I priatemanagement I I iI Itechniquesasthey~ I I I I I I II I I aredevelopedfromg I I I I I I II I gprevioustasks. II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II j. ± ± ± ± ±

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULEr 1I I I RESPONSIBLE PARTY ~COSTESTIMATES (S000’S)~I I I TASK*PRIOR- II TASK I DURATION .1 FUS , FY FY FY IIITY I TASK I I DESCRIPTION (Years) Region l Program Other I4I COMMENTSI* * * * * * 44•13 2.7 I Develop techniquesj 5 4 g FlEE SCA --- 120.0 10.0 I III landreestablish I I Iipopulationsin I I I I I IIIII Isuitablehabitat I IIIIwithinthe I I III1 I species’ historic I I I I IIII range. I I I I IIII I I I I I I III3 i3 IDevelopa ,3-5 4 FlEE gSCA 5.0 5.0 I 1.0 IIcultivated source I I I I I IIIIofplantsand Iprovide forlong- I I I I IIIterm seed storage.g I IIIII I (V)I I I I I I I II4 Enforce laws Ongoing 4 FlEE SCA 2.0 g 2.0I~protectingthe I I ILE I I II 2.0 I Ispecies and/or itsl I I I I II I II I II Ihabitat. g I I I I3I15.1IPrepare andIOngoingI4IFlEE I SCAI1 2.0I1.0~distributenews g gI Ireleasesand IIinformationalIbrochures.I I I I I I I I3 5.2 Prepare articles I Ongoing i ~ I FlEE I SCA I 1.0 I .5forpopularand I g II scientific ,I publications. i gI I I I I I I I± ± ± ± ± ± ± JI I III11.01’ II I II I II I II .Sg II I II I II I II ±( ((

( IMPLEMEN( iN SCHEDULE (rI RESPONSIBLE PARTY gCOST ESTIMATES (SOOO’S)ITASK ~ * I IjPRIOR-~ I TASK ~DURATIONi FlES IFY jFY IFY.II ITY I I TASK I I DESCRIPTION I (Years) I Region I Program I Other I COMMENTSF * •1• * * + * * * •1 I~3 j6 gAnnuallyassess ~Ongoingj 4 ~FlEE gSCA ~.5g .51 .51~successof gPA I- Igrecoveryefforts I I I I I I Igforthespecies. I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I ‘) ILv)I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I .1 I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I•I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I, II I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I. I I II I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I IL ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

C-PARTIVLIST OF REVIEWERSDr. James W. HardinDepartment of BotanyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, North Carolina 27607Dr. James MasseyDepartment of BotanyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel Hill, North Carolina 27514Ms. Kathrine SkinnerThe Nature ConservancyP.O. Box 805Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514Dr. Dan PittilloDepartment of BiologyWestern Carolina UniversityCullowhee, North Carolina 28723Dr. Richard BruceHighlands Biological StationP.O. Drawer 580Highlands, North Carolina 28741Dr. Albert RadfordDepartment of BotanyUniversity of North Carolina at ChapelChapel Hill, North Carolina 27514HillDr. James Perry, ChairmanBiology DepartmentUniversity of North Carolina at AshevilleAsheville, North Carolina 28804Dr. Bob KralBiology DepartmentVanderbilt UniversityBox 1705, Station BNashville, Tennessee 37235Mr. Robert D. Sutter, BotanistPlant Conservation ProgramNorth Carolina Department of AgricultureP.O. Box 26747Raleigh, North Carolina 2761136

Mr. Charles RoeProgram DirectorNorth Carolina Natural Heritage ProgramP.O. Box 27687Raleigh, North Carolina 27611Mr. Rob Gardner, CuratorThe North Carolina Botanical GardenUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillTotten Center 457-AChapel Hill, North Carolina 27514Mountain Lake ColoniesP.O. Box 848Greenville, South Carolina 29602The Eva Chandler Estatedo Mr. John Chandler200 Chandler DriveCampobello, South Carolina 29322Mr. James C. Blakely, Jr.P.O. Box 2464Greenville, South Carolina 29603Ms. Elizabeth Homesley4307 Edwards Road, Apartment 17HTaylors, South Carolina 29687Mr. Ken PadgettP.O. Box 2874Anderson, South Carolina 29622Mr. Rodney Pagan409 McDuffie StreetAnderson, South Carolina 29622Ms. LaBruce AlexanderThe Nature ConservancyP.O. Box 5475Columbia, South Carolina 29250Kanuga Episcopal CenterP.O. Box 250Hendersonville, North Carolina 28793Mr. and Mrs. C. L. McClureP.O. Box 133Etowah, North Carolina 2872937

Mr. James H. DaltonBox 220Etowah, North Carolina 28729Mrs. Janet M. DowlingP.O. Box 481Flat Rock, North Carolina 28731Mrs. Vernina ThomasP.O.FlatBox 144Rock, North Carolina 28731John F. and Muriel PottsVoorhees RoadDenmark, South Carolina 29042Mr. and Mrs. E. E. Stone, IIIFin and Feather PreserveP.O. Box 39Cedar Mountain, North Carolina 28718Dr. Douglas RaynerBiology DepartmentWofford CollegeSpartanburg, South Carolina 29301Dr. James A. Timmerman, DirectorSouth Carolina Wildlife and MarineResources DepartmentP.O. Box 167Columbia, South Carolina 29202Mr. Fred Brinkman, Executive DirectorSouth Carolina Department of Parks,Recreation, and TourismEdgar A. Brown Building1205 Pendleton StreetColumbia, South Carolina 29201Lt. Col. Stewart H. BornhoftDistrict EngineerU.S. Army Corps of EngineersP.O. Box 919Charleston, South Carolina 29402Col. Paul W. WoodburyDistrict EngineerU.S. Army Corps of EngineersP.O. Box 1890Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-189038

Ms. Peggy OlwellSenior Program Officer, BotanyThe Center For Plant Conservation125 The ArborwayJamaica Plain, MA 02130J. Ralph Jordan, ManagerWildlife and Natural Heritage ResourcesLand ResourcesTennessee Valley AuthorityNorris, Tennessee 37828Mr. Frederick W. Case, II7275 Thornapple LaneSaginaw, Michigan 48603Dr. Thomas C. GibsonDepartment of BotanyUniversity of Wisconsin132 Birge Hall430 Lincoln DriveMadison, Wisconsin 5370639