<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>This note is in response to Bob Beyfuss' comments regarding Natural Heritage state ranks:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>A Natural Heritage state rank of S3S4 does not mean that there are less than 100 occurrences of the species within the state. It means that the exact rarity of the species is uncertain within the state. Assigning a species rank is a little more than a numbers game. I can't vouch for how New York came to their ranking. In Tennessee we have 329 ginseng records in our database, 50 of these are historical. An additional 42 records have not been visited in the last 20 years and the current condition of the occurrences is unknown. 158 of our records are from within the last ten years, and only 26 of those have had viability assessed as poor or better (40 in the last 20 years). We do know that there is a lot of harvest pressure on the species within the state (typically number 3 state in harvest weight) and that in certain portions of the state it is getting more difficult to locate. When we do locate the species it is often depauperate occurrences of a few 2 and 3-pronged plants. On occassion I find a 4-prong plant. We also know that a fair amount of ginseng of uncertain origin is planted as woodsgrown in Tennessee. Taking all of this into account we felt it was appropriate to assign a rank of S3S4 to ginseng in Tennessee because it is of longterm conservation concern because it is commercially exploited. We know that it's rarity is within this range of 80 to widespread viable occurrences. Granted our databse is only as good as the information we collect and people send in to us. We do not receive much point location and descriptive information on ginseng occurrences. Many people that do know where ginseng occurs are not going to give up that information for a variety of reasons. We also list the species as Special Concern-Commercailly Exploited within the state. I hope this helps to explain more clearly the application of Natural Heritage Ranks.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A full explanation of Natural Heritage Ranks can be found at this website: <A href="http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm">http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>David Lincicome, Rare Plant Protection Program Administrator<BR>Tennessee Dept. of Environment & Conservation<BR>Division of Natural Areas<BR>401 Church St., 7th Floor L&C Annex<BR>Nashville, TN 37243-0447</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Phone: (615) 532-0439<BR>Fax: (615) 532-0046<BR>E-mail: <A href="mailto:david.lincicome@state.tn.us">david.lincicome@state.tn.us</A><BR>Website: <A href="http://www.state.tn.us/environment/na">http://www.state.tn.us/environment/na</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>>>> Bob Beyfuss <rlb14@cornell.edu> 06/09/06 10:43 AM >>><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="COLOR: #000000">Dear List<BR>By now you have seen the USF and W findings regarding the export of <BR>American ginseng. I applaud the decision made and commend the USF and W <BR>staff highly on their efforts to learn as much as possible (I also respect <BR>their courage in seeking out diverse opinions through public hearings, I <BR>attended one of these public meetings and watched the USF and W people put <BR>up with much abuse and personal attacks)<BR>However, I still have a couple of major concerns. First, I see that the NY <BR>Natural Heritage program now lists ginseng as S3/S4 (vulnerable/apparently <BR>secure). Previously it was classified as S4 "apparently secure" S3/S4 is <BR>defined as less than 100 "documented" populations statewide. This is <BR>NONSENSE! I can personally show anyone more than 100 ginseng populations <BR>and there are likely thousands more out there. One single dealer I <BR>personally know has bought ginseng from over 400 different individuals. <BR>This is documented data and has been duly reported to the state ginseng <BR>coordinator. Does anyone think that all these people are all digging from <BR>the same 100 or less populations? We have dealers all over the state buying <BR>from many other diggers, Ginseng coordinators have data in their files to <BR>refute this nonsense. Do other states have this same "disconnect" from the <BR>data that has been recorded by state ginseng coordinators and their NH <BR>programs? A similar situations exists in KY which exports some 5 or 6 <BR>million wild roots each year despite their Natural Heritage Program saying <BR>there are fewer than 100 populations. Their export data is also well <BR>documented but apparently the folks at Natural Heritage are also clueless <BR>about this. Will someone please tell me what needs to be done to get NY and <BR>other NH programs to change their rating? They seem to exist in some sort <BR>of "ivory tower" that does not bother to touch base with reality. I have <BR>gone on their website and have offered to show them populations but have <BR>not ever even received a reply. This elitist attitude breeds contempt from <BR>harvesters and creates a sense of hopelessness among concerned ginseng <BR>researchers and needs to be addressed.<BR>Second, as comprehensive as the USF and W "findings" appear to be, they are <BR>loaded with citations of "personal conversations" and "unpublished data" . <BR>This amounts to no less than "hearsay" and indicates bias since neither <BR>"personal conversations" nor "unpublished data" to the contrary is cited. <BR>I strongly support and encourage USF and W to use science as a basis for <BR>their decisions, but "unpublished data" and "personal conversations" are <BR>not science.<BR>Bob Beyfuss<BR><BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>