[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55967-56026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22061]
[[Page 55967]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 176
September 11, 2012
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Status
for Texas Golden Gladecress and Neches River Rose-mallow and
Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55968]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AX74
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Status for Texas Golden Gladecress and Neches River Rose-mallow and
Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list two
Texas plants, Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden gladecress) as an
endangered species and Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River rose-mallow) as
a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) and propose to designate critical habitat for both
species. These are proposed regulations, and if finalized the effect of
these regulations will be to conserve the species and protect their
habitat under the Endangered Species Act.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 13, 2012. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by October 26,
2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2012-0064, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical
habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record
for this rulemaking and are available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064, and at the
Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information
that we may develop for this rulemaking will also be available at the
Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and
may also be included in the preamble and/or at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Strand, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field
Office, 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5837, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78412-5837,
by telephone 361-994-9005 or by facsimile 361-994-8262. Persons who use
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), a species may warrant protection through listing if it is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden
gladecress) and Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River rose-mallow) have been
candidates for listing since 1997, but action has been precluded by
higher priority listings. As part of a court-approved settlement, we
agreed to reevaluate the status of both species and after conducting a
thorough review of the current status and level of threats to both
species and their habitats between fall 2011 and winter 2012, we
concluded that listing, and designation of critical habitat, for both
species is warranted.
This rule proposes to add both species to the Federal Lists of
Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants and proposes to designate
critical habitat for both species.
We propose to list the Texas golden gladecress and the
Neches River rose-mallow as an endangered and threatened species,
respectively, under the Act.
We propose to designate approximately 1,353 acres (ac) (539
hectares (ha)) of critical habitat for the gladecress in Sabine and San
Augustine Counties, and approximately 187.8 ac (76.0 ha) of critical
habitat for the rose-mallow in Cherokee, Houston, Trinity, Harrison,
and Nacogdoches Counties, Texas.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
We have determined that both species are negatively affected by the
following:
Habitat loss and degradation of herbaceous glade plant
communities supporting the gladecress, and of open habitats on hydric
alluvial soils along sloughs, oxbows, terraces, and wetlands of the
Neches River or Mud and Tantabogue Creeks that support the rose-mallow.
Activities or factors negatively impacting the habitat of the
gladecress include: Glauconite quarrying; natural gas and oil
exploration and production; invasion of open glades by nonnative and
native shrubs, trees, and vines, and other weedy species; pine tree
plantings in close proximity to occupied glades; and herbicide
applications that have potential to kill emerging seedlings. The rose-
mallow's habitat is being lost and degraded by encroachment of
nonnative and native plant species, particularly trees, herbicide use,
livestock trampling, and alteration of natural hydrology of seasonal
flooding to conditions where habitat has been drained or has become
permanently flooded. Prolonged or frequent droughts can exacerbate
habitat degradation for both species.
Lack of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect either
species or their habitats.
Other natural or manmade factors, including low numbers of
individual plants and few remaining populations. The species' natural
variability that is associated with climatic conditions can be
negatively affected by the effects of drought.
Also under the Act, upon making a determination that a species
warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species, we are
required to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. We are required to base the designation on the best
available scientific data after taking into consideration economic and
other impacts. We can exclude an area from critical habitat if the
benefits of
[[Page 55969]]
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion
will result in the extinction of the species.
This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for each species.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat for both species in
East Texas as follows:
Approximately 1,353 acres (ac) (539 hectares (ha)) are
designated as critical habitat for Texas golden gladecress.
Approximately 178 ac (76 ha) are designated as critical
habitat for Neches River rose-mallow.
We are planning to prepare an economic analysis. To ensure that we
consider the economic impacts, we will prepare an economic analysis of
the proposed critical habitat designations. We will use the data from
the economic analysis to inform the final rule.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our assessment of threats and their impacts
on these species, as well as our critical habitat designations, are
based on the best available scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to comment on our
proposed listing of the gladecress and the rose-mallow and our critical
habitat designations. Because we will consider all comments and
information received during the comment period, our final
determinations may differ from this proposal.
This document consists of: (1) One proposed rule to list the
Leavenworthia texana as an endangered species; (2) one proposed rule to
list the Hibiscus dasycalyx as a threatened species; and (3) proposed
critical habitat designations for each species. For the purposes of
this document, we will refer to Leavenworthia texana as Texas golden
gladecress or gladecress and Hibiscus dasycalyx as Neches River rose-
mallow or rose-mallow.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) These species' biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Habitat requirements for pollination, reproduction, and
dispersal;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their
habitat or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued
existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats;
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species,
including the locations of any additional populations of these species;
(5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and
their habitat;
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to these species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threats outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not
prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of the Texas golden gladecress and
Neches River rose-mallow and their habitat;
(b) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of these species,'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by these species;
(c) Where these features are currently found;
(d) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(e) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of these species, should be included in the designation
and why;
(f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of these species and why;
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by these species or proposed to be designated as
critical habitat, and possible impacts of these activities on these
species and proposed critical habitat;
(9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on these species and proposed critical habitat;
(10) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts;
(11) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments;
(12) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designations.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document
[[Page 55970]]
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include
sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Previous Federal Actions
We first identified the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River
rose-mallow as candidates for listing in the September 19, 1997, Notice
of Review of Plant and Animal Taxa that are Candidates or Proposed for
Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (62 FR 49397). Candidates
are those fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of
a listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing
activities. The Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-
mallow were included in subsequent annual Candidate Notices of Reviews
through 2004 (64 FR 57533, October 25, 1999; 66 FR 54808, October 30,
2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; and 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004). A
petition to list Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-
mallow was received on May 11, 2004, but contained no new information,
and we continued to include both species in all annual Candidate
Notices of Review between 2005 and 2011 (70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71
FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR
75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222,
November 10, 2010; and 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011). In 2000, Texas
golden gladecress' listing priority number was increased from 5 to 2 in
accordance with our priority guidance published on September 21, 1983
(48 FR 43098). A listing priority of 2 reflects a species with threats
that are both imminent and high in magnitude. In 2010, Neches River
rose-mallow's listing priority number was also increased from 5 to 2.
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly relevant
to the proposed listing of the Texas golden gladecress as an endangered
species and Neches River rose-mallow as a threatened species in this
section of the proposed rule.
Background
This document contains proposed rules to list Texas golden
gladecress as an endangered species and Neches River rose-mallow as a
threatened species and to propose critical habitat for each species.
The document is structured to address the taxa separately under each of
the sectional headings that follow.
Species Information
Texas Golden Gladecress
Taxonomy and Description
Texas golden gladecress is a small, annual, herbaceous plant
belonging to the mustard family (Brassicaceae). Dr. M.C. Leavenworth,
an Army physician, first collected the taxon in Choctaw County,
Oklahoma, in 1835, and the specimens were later described as a new
species, Leavenworthia aurea, by Torrey (Mahler 1981, pp. 76-77). From
1836 to 1837, Leavenworth collected similar specimens near the present-
day town of San Augustine, San Augustine County, Texas, and these were
also identified as L. aurea. Later collections of the plant in the San
Augustine area were made by E.J. Palmer (1915 and 1918), D.S. and H.B.
Correll (1961 to 1962) as cited by Mahler (1981, pp. 83), and
populations in this area were studied and mapped by George and Nixon
(1990, pp. 117-127) between 1979 to 1980. W.H. Mahler studied the
collected specimens and their habitat, and described the Texas plants
as a new species, Leavenworthia texana (Mahler 1987, pp. 239-242),
based on differences in morphological characteristics of flowers and
leaves, and in chromosome number, between the Oklahoma and Texas plants
(Mahler 1987, pp. 239-242).
According to Mahler (1987, p. 240), Texas golden gladecress flower
petals were a brighter, deeper yellow than those of L. aurea; and the
petals were egg-shaped and flat instead of being broad and notched. The
L. texana had wider-than-long terminal leaf segments that were usually
distinctly lobed while L. aurea's terminal leaves were essentially
unlobed, flat, and more circular. Texas plants had a chromosome number
of 2n = 22 (E.S. Nixon, pers. comm. in Mahler 1987, pp. 239, 241) while
the Oklahoma L. aurea had 2n = 48 (Rollins 1963, pp. 9-11; Beck et al.
2006, p. 156). We are aware that a recently completed monograph of the
genus may have taxonomic implications for the Texas and Oklahoma
Leavenworthia species in the future, but several questions, including
the differences in chromosome number, remain unresolved and no
supporting information that would change the current status of Texas
golden gladecress has been published to date (Poole 2011a, pers.
comm.).
Texas golden gladecress is a weakly rooted, glabrous (smooth,
glossy), winter annual (completes its life cycle in 1 year). Texas
golden gladecress is small in stature, less than 3.9 inches (in) (10
centimeters (cm)) in height, making it difficult to find except during
flowering or when it bears fruit. The leaves are 0.8-3.1 in (2-8 cm)
long and 0.4-0.6 in (1-1.5 millimeters (mm)) wide, forming rosettes at
the base of the plant. Terminal leaf segments are wider-than-long, and
usually distinctly lobed, with angular teeth. Flowers are bright yellow
and borne on scapes (leafless flowering stems or stalks arising from
the ground) that are 1.2-3.5 in (3-9 cm) long early in the flowering
season. Later in the season, the flowers occur on unbranched flower
clusters that come off a single central stem from which the individual
flowers grow on small stalks, at intervals. The four petals are bright
golden-yellow with a slightly darker base, narrowly obovate (tongue-
shaped), 0.3-0.4 in (7-10 mm) long and 0.1-0.2 (3.5-5 mm) wide. The
fruit is a slender seed capsule, known as a silique, with a length
(0.6-1.2 in (15-30 mm)) that is more than twice its width (0.08-0.22 in
(2-5.5 mm)) and that contains 5-11 flattened, circular or spherically
shaped seeds. The description above was drawn from Poole et al. (2007,
p. 286), who adapted it from others.
Habitat
Texas golden gladecress occurs within the Pineywoods natural region
of easternmost Texas, within the Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic
Region. The region is defined by pine-dominated forests or woodlands
interspersed with bottomland, mesic slope and bald cypress-tupelo swamp
forests. Many of the rare plants of the Pineywoods region, including
the gladecress and the federally endangered Physaria pallida (white
bladderpod) are found in small-scale plant communities tied to
``geologic and hydrologic conditions that are themselves rather rare on
the landscape'' (Poole et al. 2007, p. 6).
The Texas golden gladecress is endemic to glade habitats in
northern San Augustine and northwest Sabine Counties, Texas, and is a
habitat specialist, occurring only on outcrops of the Weches Geologic
Formation (Mahler 1987, p. 240; George and Nixon 1990, p. 120; Poole et
al. 2007, pp. 286-287). The gladecress grows only in glades on shallow,
calcium-rich soils that are wet
[[Page 55971]]
in winter and spring. These occur on ironstone (glauconite or green-
stone) outcrops (Poole et al. 2007, p. 286).
All species within the small genus Leavenworthia share an
adaptation to glade habitats that have unique physical characteristics,
the most important being a combination of shallow soil depth and high
calcium content (dolomitic limestone or otherwise calcareous soils)
where the soil layers have been deposited in such a manner that they
maintain temporary high-moisture content at or very near the surface
(Rollins 1963, pp. 4-6). Typically, only a few inches of soil overlie
the bedrock, or, in spots, the soil may be almost lacking and the
surface barren. The glade habitats that support all Leavenworthia
species are extremely wet during the late winter and early spring and
then dry to the point of being parched in summer (Rollins 1963, p. 5).
These glades can vary in size from as small as a few meters to larger
than 0.37 miles\2\ (mi\2\) (1 kilometer\2\ (km\2\)) and are
characterized as having an open, sunny aspect (lacking canopy)
(Quarterman 1950, p. 1; Rollins 1963, p. 5). The landscape position of
the glades may also play a role in assuring the cyclic moisture regime
required by glade vegetation communities.
The Weches Geologic Formation consists of bands of ancient marine
sediments deposited in a line roughly parallel to the Gulf of Mexico,
running from Sabine to Frio Counties, Texas. A layer of glauconite clay
is either exposed at the surface or covered by a thin layer of
calcareous (calcium-containing) sediment measuring as deep as 20 in (50
cm) (George and Nixon 1990, pp. 117-118). Glauconite is a
characteristic mineral of marine depositional environments, presenting
a greenish color when initially exposed to the atmosphere, and later
turning red (Davis 1966, pp. 17-18; Nemec 1996, p. 7). The area of the
Weches outcrops in San Augustine County is referred to as the
``redlands'' (Ritter 2011b, pers. comm.). The glauconite is very
friable (crumbly) and has low resistance to weathering (Geocaching.com
2010, p. 5). The soils overlying the clay layer are typically rocky and
shallow (George 1987, p. 3) and at all Texas golden gladecress sites
are classified within the Nacogdoches, Trawick, or Bub soils series
(USDA 2009, entire).
Weches outcrops occur in a band averaging 5 miles (mi) (8
kilometers (km)) in width that parallels Texas State Highway (SH) 21
through northern San Augustine and northwestern Sabine Counties
(Sellards et al. 1932 in Diggs et al. 2006, p. 56). It has been deeply
dissected by erosion that created islands of thin, loamy, alkaline
soils (pH 7-8), within the normally deep, sandy, acidic soils (pH 4-5)
of the Pineywoods region. The glauconite layer of the Weches Formation
is fairly impermeable to water, producing saturated, thin upper soils
in late fall through spring, that dry out and harden during summer
months (George 1987, pp. 2-4; Bezanson 2000 in Diggs et al. 2006, p.
56). Down-slope seepage across the Weches terraces may also be
important to maintain the hydrology required by the gladecress
(Singhurst 2003, pers. comm.). The cyclic moisture regime and the
alkalinity of the soils produce conditions unique to the Weches
outcrops. Certain plants, such as the Texas golden gladecress, have
evolved to live within these specialized geologic formations (Mahler
1987, p. 240; George and Nixon 1990, pp. 120-122).
Biology
The Texas golden gladecress occurs in open, sunny, herbaceous-
dominated plant communities in Weches glades, in some areas that also
support the white bladderpod (Bridges 1988, p. II-7, II-35, and II-35
supplement). Unlike the white bladderpod, which can grow throughout the
glade, the gladecress is restricted to the outcrop rock faces within
the glades where it occurs (Nemec 1996, p. 8).
As is true of other Leavenworthia species (Rollins 1963, p. 6),
Texas golden gladecress seeds germinate during fall rains and the
plants overwinter as small, tap-rooted rosettes. Flowering begins in
February and continues into March, and sometimes as late as April,
depending on annual weather conditions. Rollins (1963, p. 6) noted that
the blooming period of Leavenworthia varied according to the
temperature, moisture, and severity of winter freezes. Fruit production
is generally seen from March into April. The plants respond to drying
of the soil by dropping seed and withering away, usually in April and
May (Singhurst 2011b, pers. comm.). By summer months, gladecress plants
are dead, replaced by other low-growing species such as Sedum
pulchellum (stonecrop), Portulaca oleracea (common purslane),
Phemeranthus parviflorus (sunbright), and Elocharis occulata (limestone
spikerush) (Singhurst 2012e, pers. comm.). Although seed dispersal has
not been studied in Texas golden gladecress, observations indicate that
seeds fall within 6-8 in (15-20 cm) of the parent plant (Singhurst
2011c, pers. comm.).
Little is known about the gladecress' seed bank as this aspect of
life history has not been researched. The species did reappear at two
sites where it was believed lost due to habitat degradation. A
population location, the Geneva Site in Sabine County (see Table 1),
was bulldozed in late March 1999, one week after flowering plants were
counted--the site was subsequently described by the surveyor as ``lost
or destroyed'' (Turner 1999, pers. comm.). However, plants were found
again at this site in 2003 and continued to emerge in succeeding years.
At a second site in San Augustine County (Chapel Hill Site, see Table
1), a thick growth of the invasive, nonnative shrub, Rosa bracteata
(Macartney rose) was removed in 1995. Post-brush removal, the
gladecress reappeared after not having been seen for the previous 10
years (Nemec 1996, p. 1). The species' reappearance after these habitat
alterations suggests a persistent seed bank, although there have been
no formal studies to verify this hypothesis.
Rare plants often have adaptations such as early blooming, extended
flowering, or mixed-mating systems that allow them to persist in small
populations (Brigham 2003, p. 61). The Texas golden gladecress is
believed to be self-compatible and able to self-fertilize (Rollins
1963, p. 19; Beck et al. 2006, p. 153). The species may have evolved
for self-fertilization when conditions are not favorable for insect-
vectored pollination, lessening the species' dependence on pollinators
for cross-pollination and survival and potentially making the species
more resilient under conditions of small, geographically separated
populations. Rollins (1963, pp. 41-47) speculated that species in the
genus Leavenworthia evolved from a self-incompatible original ancestor
to self-compatibility in some species to persist with a diminishing
overlap in seasonality of adequate moisture in glade habitats versus
availability of insect pollinators (e.g., as the southeastern part of
the U.S. warmed, the required moisture levels for germination and
flowering became more restricted to winter months when insect
availability was lower). This could help to enhance the species'
persistence, at least in the short term, in a fragmented landscape
where habitat patches may be so distant from one another as to preclude
pollinators' movements between them. The presence of other flowering
plants at gladecress sites could help to attract and maintain a
reservoir of pollinators, thereby increasing the chances for the
gladecress to be cross-pollinated. This would benefit the species by
potentially providing a higher level of genetic diversity.
[[Page 55972]]
Distribution and Status
Texas golden gladecress is known from eight locations, including
one introduced population, all within a narrow zone that parallels SH
21 in San Augustine, Sabine, and Nacogdoches Counties (Texas Natural
Diversity Database (TXNDD) 2012b). Table 1 (below) summarizes the
location information for Texas golden gladecress populations (taken
from the TXNDD 2012b). Based on known population locations, taken from
the TXNDD element occurrence records from 1974-1988, the Weches Glades
of San Augustine County appear to be the center of the species'
distribution; to date all but one of the naturally occurring
populations were found in this area, with the other naturally occurring
population in Sabine County. One population was successfully introduced
into Nacogdoches County. All locations (historic and extant) occur
primarily on privately owned land, although the plants do extend onto
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) right-of-way (ROW) at
two sites: Geneva Site and Caney Creek Glades Site 1 (CCG 1).
Table 1--Location and Status of Texas Golden Gladecress Populations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Population designation Status Historic site description Land owner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Augustine...................... Caney Creek Glade Site Extant..................... Described by The Nature Private & State ROW.
1. Conservancy as approx. 1
ac (0.4 ha) site; by 2001
was less than 100 ft[sup2]
(9 m[sup2]).
San Augustine...................... Chapel Hill (aka Tiger Extant..................... Tract on which gladecress Private.
Creek). was found was less than
0.25 ac (0.1 ha).
Sabine............................. Geneva................ Extant..................... Size of site was approx. Private & State ROW.
100 ft[sup2] (9 m[sup2]).
Nacogdoches........................ Simpson Farms Extant through 2009. Site Population approx. 200 Private.
(Introduced was eradicated by pipeline ft[sup2] (18 m[sup2]) in
Population). in 2011. size.
San Augustine...................... Caney Creek Glade Site Status unknown. Possibly Small population; locally Private.
7. extant--not accessible in abundant in very small
last 24 years. area.
San Augustine...................... Caney Creek Glade Site Site is now excavated pits. Site was approx. 3 ac Private.
2. (1.21ha).
San Augustine...................... Caney Creek Glade Site Site is now excavated pits. Multiple tracts totaling ~ Private.
6. Possibility that some 10 ac. Sites 6, 7 and 8 in
habitat and plants remain different areas on these
on adjacent, unquarried tracts. Site 6 was the
land. largest known population--
thousands of plants.
San Augustine...................... Caney Creek Glade Site Site lost to excavated pits Very small population on a Private.
8. degraded outcrop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four Texas golden gladecress populations (CCG 1, Chapel Hill,
Geneva, and Simpson Farms) were present through 2009--the last year
that the plants were surveyed (Singhurst 2011a, pers. comm.). In
October 2011, Service and TPWD biologists visited all four known
locations and found that the plants and habitat at the introduced site
in Nacogdoches County (Simpson Farms) had been removed by a recent
pipeline installation. The habitat was still intact at the other three
locations (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.), and we assume that plants still
occupy these sites.
Three San Augustine County occurrences (CCG Sites 2, 6, and 8) were
believed extirpated, at least in large part, by construction of
glauconite mines (open pits) beginning in the late 1990's. These
occurrences may have been part of a much larger glade complex, referred
to as the Caney Creek Glade Complex, that included the Caney Creek
Glade Sites 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. These five occurrences were located
within an area extending out to 1.5 mi (2.41 km) to the east of the
town of San Augustine (TXNDD 2012b, unpaginated). In 1987, the CCG Site
6 was described as having Texas golden gladecress plants ``in the
thousands'' (TXNDD 2012b, unpaginated). Access to these three privately
owned sites is prohibited; therefore, we cannot ascertain whether any
plants or their habitat are still present on the peripheries of the
mined areas.
The CCG Site 7 was last visited in 1988 (TXNDD 2012b, unpaginated).
There were no further site visits due to lack of access to the
privately owned land. Satellite images taken as recently as 2008 show
this population site has not been altered by construction or quarrying
(mining), but the open glade appearance at this site has changed to one
of dense growth of woody vegetation, so it is unknown whether the
plants still occur at the site.
Table 2 presents estimates for extant Texas golden gladecress
populations between 1999 and 2009 (USFWS 2012, p. 4). The total number
of plants seen in 2009 was 1,108. The largest population, consisting of
721 plants, was at the introduced site in Nacogdoches County, a site
that was lost in 2011 when a pipeline route was constructed directly
through it. This represents a loss of 65 percent of the known plants.
After 2009, approximately 400 plants in 3 populations were all that
remained of this species. The number of gladecress plants fluctuated
widely from year to year, likely due to differences in precipitation
levels between years. The gladecress is dependent on fall and winter
rain to saturate the sediment and produce the seeps and pooling it
requires, and drought conditions were noted to have a significant
negative effect on reproduction, (Turner 2000, p. 1) as seen in the
drought years of 1999-2000 (Texas Water Resources Institute 2011,
unpaginated) when the Chapel Hill site decreased from 91 to 67 plants
and the CCG Site 1 decreased from 490 to 96 plants (USFWS 2010, p. 5).
Table 2--Population Estimates for Texas Golden Gladecress at Monitored
Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapel CCG 1 Geneva Farms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................ 91 490 319 * NS
2000............................ 67 96 NS NS
[[Page 55973]]
2001............................ 96 520 NS 270
2002............................ NS NS NS NS
2003............................ 42 NS 57 57
2004............................ NS NS NS NS
2005............................ 40-50 0 54 2,873
2006............................ NS NS 200 NS
2007............................ 200 NS 1,000 1,000
2008............................ 9 NS 49 NS
2009............................ 98 29 260 721
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NS--Not surveyed.
Singhurst (2011a, pers. comm.) referred to the difficulty of trying
to determine population trends for the Texas golden gladecress due to
the lack of comprehensive numbers for the species. He attributed this
data gap to variation in surveyors and their techniques, the inability
to see gladecress plants under invasive brush, lack of access to
multiple sites, and the fluctuation in plant numbers associated with
moisture conditions. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, it is
evident that there are few remaining populations and that the overall
numbers of existing plants are fluctuating. For example, a decrease in
plant numbers in 2009 was likely due to drought; however, following
significant rains in late fall 2011 and early winter 2012, Singhurst
(2012f, pers. comm.) noted higher numbers of plants than the 2009
counts at Geneva, Chapel Hill, and CCG Site 1.
Most of the known populations, historic and extant, were and are
restricted to small areas (see Table 1). For example, in San Augustine
County, the Chapel Hill site is less than 0.2 acres (ac) (0.1 hectare
(ha)) in size and lies between a pasture fence and gravel road
southwest of SH 21. The area of the plants at the CCG Site 1 is less
than 100 ft\2\ (9 m\2\) in size, on the side of Sunrise Road south of
SH 21. In Sabine County, the plants at the Geneva site occupy
approximately 100 ft\2\ (9 m\2\) adjacent to, and west of, SH 21, south
of Geneva. The total area occupied by the plants at the remaining three
sites covers less than 1.2 ac (0.5 ha). Area sizes for gladecress
occurrences were taken from the TXNDD element of occurrence records.
Although no new populations of Texas golden gladecress have been
found since the late 1980s, there is potential for more gladecress to
exist across the Weches Glades Region. Known populations all occur
close to roads suggesting that most searches for the species were
nearby to public road access. All known occurrences are on private
property, as is all remaining habitat; therefore, surveys cannot be
conducted without landowner permission. Effective identification of
suitable habitat is needed to survey for new populations. Even in areas
of potential Weches Glades, as identified using Geographic Systems
Information (GIS) data, including aerial, geologic, and hydrologic data
sources, the habitat may not contain Texas golden gladecress
populations. Between 1999 and 2003, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) used
these tools to identify 44 potential sites of gladecress and white
bladderpod occurrence in the San Augustine Glades. The TNC was granted
access to 14 of the 44 sites, but found little Weches habitat, and no
new gladecress or bladderpod sites (Turner 2003 in USFWS 2010b, p. 3).
Neches River rose-mallow
Taxonomy and Description
Hibiscus dasycalyx (the rose-mallow) (Blake) is a nonwoody
perennial (plant that grows year after year) in the Malvaceae (mallow)
family that grows 1.9-7.5 feet (ft) (0.6-2.3 meters (m)) tall (Correll
and Johnston 1979, p. 1030). Leaves are alternate and simple, generally
t-shaped and deeply three-lobed with petioles (leaf stalks) 1.1-1.9 in
(3-5 cm) long (Correll and Johnston 1979, p. 1030). This rose-mallow
generally produces six or seven creamy white flowers (rarely pink)
singularly on branches flowering between June and August (Poole et al.
2007, p. 265), sometimes into late October depending on water
availability during springtime inundations (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Center
for Plant Conservation 2011, http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/
). Large and numerous stamens are monodelphous, forming a tube that is
united with the base of the petals (Klips 1999, p. 270).
The rose-mallow was first collected by Ivan Shiller on June 23,
1955, at the type locality at Hwy 204 (also referred to as Apple
Springs), Trinity County, Texas, and was later identified as a distinct
species (Correll and Johnston 1979, pp. 1030-1031). Blake (1958, p.
277) determined that the rose-mallow was different from the closely
related Hibiscus laevis (halberdleaf rose-mallow) by examining
specimens from the type locality. Gould (1975), Nixon (1985), Hatch et
al. (1990), Johnston (1990), and Fryxell (Warnock 1995, pp. 1-2; Poole
2002, pers. comm.) all recognized the rose-mallow as a distinct
species.
Two similar-looking Hibiscus species, H. laevis and H. moscheutos
(crimsoneyed rose-mallow) are aquatic species documented in areas where
the rose-mallow occurs. A morphological distinction between these
Hibiscus species of East Texas and the rose-mallow is the species'
notably hairy calyx (Warnock 1995, p. 5). All three of these species
have a similar general appearance, but can be separated based on a
comparison of external characteristics including leaf structure, and
degree of pubescence (fine hairs) on the calyx, leaves, capsule (dry
fruit), or seeds (Correll and Correll 1975, p. 1118; Blanchard 1976, p.
5; Warnock 1995, p. 4). Geographically, these three species can be
found within similar habitats, but the halberdleaf and the crimsoneyed
rose-mallows prefer deeper water and are found along edges of major
rivers and streams (Blanchard 1976, pp. 10-14; Poole 2011b, pers.
comm.), compared with the rose-mallow, which is found in side channels
and floodplains of major river drainages. Based on the available
information on the species morphology, biology, and habitat-specific
needs, we conclude that the rose-mallow is a valid taxon.
Habitat
The rose-mallow is endemic to relatively open habitat (Kennedy and
Poole 1990, p. 11) of the Pineywoods (or Timber belt) of East Texas
(Gould 1975, p. 1; Correll and Johnston 1979, p. 1030), within
Cherokee, Houston, and Trinity Counties and has been introduced into
Nacogdoches and Harrison Counties. Shortleaf/loblolly pine-hardwood
forests dominate the habitat with portions of suitable habitat
extending into longleaf pine (Pinus palustrus) and loblolly pine forest
(Pinus taeda) (Telfair 1983, p. 28; Diggs et al. 2006, p. 95). The
common native woody and herbaceous plant associates are listed in Table
3 (Warnock 1995, pp. 14-15; Poole et. al 2007, pp. 264-265).
[[Page 55974]]
Table 3--Native Plant Associates of Neches River Rose-Mallow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific name Common name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native Woody Plant Associates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carya aquatic................................... water hickory.
Cephalanthus occidentalis....................... common buttonbush.
Celtis laevigata var. laevigata................. sugar berry.
Fraxinus sp..................................... ash.
Quercus lyrata.................................. overcup oak.
Q. nigra........................................ wateroak.
Liquidambar styraciflua......................... sweetgum.
Salix nigra..................................... black willow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native Herbaceous Plant Associates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boehmeria cylindrica............................ smallspike false nettle.
Brunnichia ovate................................ buckwheat vine.
Carex lupulina.................................. common hop sedge.
Chasmanthium sessilifolium...................... longleaf woodoats.
Diodia virginiana............................... Virginia buttonweed.
Eichhornia crassipes............................ water hyacinth.
Heliotropium indicum............................ Indian heliotrope.
H. moscheutos................................... crimsoneyed rose-mallow.
H. laevis....................................... halberdleaf rose-mallow.
Hydrolea ovate.................................. ovate false fiddleleaf.
Hydrocotyle ranunculoides....................... floating pennywort.
Juncus effuses.................................. common rush.
Ludwigia leptocarpa............................. anglestem primrose-willow.
Nuphar lutea.................................... yellow pond-lily.
Phanopyrum gymnocarpon.......................... Savannah-panicgrass.
Panicum ridgulum................................ redtop panicgrass.
Pluchea foetida................................. stinking camphorweed.
Polygonum hydropiperoides....................... swamp smartweed.
Pontederia cordata.............................. pickerelweed.
Rhynchospora corniculata........................ shortbristle horned beaksedge.
Scirpus cyperinus............................... woolgrass.
Thalia dealbata................................. powdery alligator-flag.
Trachelospermum difforme........................ climbing dogbane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sites where the rose mallow have been found have been described as
sloughs, oxbows, terraces, and sand bars. Sites include low areas
(Warnock 1995, p. 13) within the Neches River basin and Mud and
Tantabogue Creek basins, with soils that are classified generically as
hydric alluvials, or water-saturated soils, of the Inceptisol or
Entisol orders (Diggs et al. 2006, pp. 46, 79) that remain flooded or
frequently flood. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) completed soils surveys for all
counties with known occurrences of the rose-mallow, and the associated
soils are frequently flooded clay loams. Sites are both perennial and
intermittent wetlands with water levels between sites varying due to
their proximity to water, amount of rainfall, and floodwaters.
Intermittent wetlands are inundated during the winter months but become
dry during the summer months (Warnock 1995, p. 11). Flowing water is
required for seed dispersal downstream (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott
1997, p. 8; Reeves 2008, p. 3). Rivers of East Texas tend to overflow
onto banks and floodplains (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 78), especially
during the rainy season, thereby dispersing seed. Research has not been
done to identify methods of seed dispersal upstream; however, avian
species may facilitate this process.
Biology
The rose-mallow is a perennial that dies back to the ground every
year and resprouts from the base; however, still maintaining
aboveground stems. Longevity of the species is unknown but it may be
long-lived. Cross-pollination occurs (Blanchard 1976, p. 38) within the
rose-mallow populations and the species has high reproductive potential
(fecundity). The number of flowers and fruits per plant were documented
during the TPWD's annual monitoring of the rose-mallow along State
Highway (SH) ROWs. The species produced an average of 50 fruits per
plant, but seed viability and survivorship are not known (Poole 2012a,
pers. comm.). An open canopy (Warnock 1995, pp. 11, 13) and sunlight
are needed for flowers to bloom, and the blooming period may only last
1 day (Snow and Spira 1993, p. 160).
Potential pollinators of the rose-mallow may include but are not
limited to, the common bumblebee (Bombus pensylvanicus), Hibiscus bee
(Ptilothrix bombiformis), moths, and the scentless plant bug Niesthrea
louisianica (Klips 1995, p. 1471; Warnock 1995, p. 20; Warriner 2011,
pers. comm.). Both H. laevis and H. moscheutos are pollinated by common
bumblebees and the Hibiscus bee (Snow and Spira 1993, p. 160; Klips
1999, p. 270). The solitary Hibiscus bee prefers gently sloping or flat
areas with sandy or sandy-loam soils for nesting areas (Vaughan et al.
2007, pp. 25-26; Black et al. 2009, p. 12), and female bees will
excavate nest cavities in elevated, hard packed, dirt roadways or
levees near stands of Hibiscus (in this case H. palustris) and standing
water (Rust 1980, p. 427). Members of the genus Bombus (family Apidae)
are social bees, predominantly found in temperate zones, nesting
underground (Evans et al., 2008, p. 6) in sandy soils (Cane 1991, p.
407). Bumblebees nest in small cavities, often underground in abandoned
rodent nests, grass (Black et al. 2009, p. 12), or in open, grassy
habitat (Warriner 2012a,
[[Page 55975]]
pers. comm.). Other aboveground-nesting bees that may potentially
pollinate the rose-mallow may include carpenter, mason, and leaf cutter
bees that nest in dead snags or twigs or standing dead wood (Warriner
2012a, pers. comm.). Maximum foraging distances of solitary and social
bee species are 492 to 1,968 ft (150 to 600 m) (Gathrmann and
Tscharntke 2002, p. 762) and 263 to 5,413 ft (80 to 1,650 m) (Walther-
Hellwig and Frankl 2000, p. 244), respectively. The scentless plant bug
is a member of the Rhopalidae family found specifically in association
with various members of the Malvaceae family. This species is known to
deposit eggs on both the vegetative and reproductive parts of mallow
plants (Spencer 1988, p. 421). Holes have been eaten in floral parts of
rose-mallow plants suggesting that the scentless plant bug may be a
pollinator as well as a consumer of the rose-mallow.
Natural fires occur every 1 to 3 years in East Texas (Landers et
al. 1990, p. 136; Landers 1991, p. 73) and control the overgrowth of
longleaf and loblolly pine, as well as nonnative species; humans later
used fire to suppress overgrowth. Fire suppression allows for sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), oaks (Quercus sp.), hickories (Carya sp.),
common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and southern magnolia
(Magnolia grandiflora) to invade the natural pine forests (Daubenmire
1990, p. 341; Gilliam and Platt 1999, p. 22), and reduce the open
canopy needed by the rose-mallow. Lack of fire increases the
opportunity for nonnative species, such as chinese tallow (Triadica
sebifera), to invade these sites.
Distribution and Status
The natural geographic range of the rose-mallow is within Trinity,
Houston, Harrison, and Cherokee Counties, Texas, on State highway (SH)
ROWs and on private and Federal lands. However, the species has been
introduced outside of the known geographic range in Nacogdoches County
on private land (Mill Creek). In addition, populations of rose-mallow
have been introduced within their natural geographic range on Federal
lands. In total, there are 12 occurrences of rose-mallow (see Table 4).
Eleven of these are within the known geographic range, and, as of
October 2011, are occupied by the rose-mallow. The rose-mallow plants
within the SH 230 ROW have not been seen since 2002, and the site is
considered extirpated.
Table 4--Population Estimates for Known Rose-Mallow Occurrences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First and last
Site County observation Plant estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compartment 55, Davy Houston............... 2000; 2011............ 1000 in 2000, 750 in 2002, 750
Crockett National Forest (NF). in 2010, 400-500 in Oct. 2011.
2. Compartment 16, Davy Houston............... 2000; 2011............ 450 in 2000, 115 in 2002, 78 in
Crockett NF (introduced). 2003, 50 in 2006, 90 in 2010,
43 in 2011.
3. Compartment 11, Davy Houston............... 2004; 2011............ 200 in 2004, 10 in 2006, 7 in
Crockett NF (introduced). 2010, 10 in 2011.
4. Compartment 20, Davy Houston............... 2000; 2011............ 200-250 in 2000, 70 in 2002, 182
Crockett NF (introduced). in 2002, 350 in 2006, 120 in
2010, 101 in 2011.
5. SH 94 ROW/Boggy Slough..... Trinity............... 1955; 2011............ 100+ in 1968, 50 in 1986, 50 in
1987, 13 in 1988, 7-9 in 1991,
2 in 1992, 27 in 1993, 38 in
1994, 41 in 1995, 16 in 1996,
15 and 20 on private land in
1997, 13 in 1998, 49 in 1999,
17 in 2000, 15 and 300+ on
private land in 2001, 20 in
2002, 20 and 0 on private land
in 2005, 35 along powerline in
2007, 128 along ROW in 2011.
6. SH 204 ROW/Mud Creek....... Cherokee.............. 1992; 2011............ 1 in 1992, 1 in 1993-1996, 75 in
1997, 1 in 1998, 2 in 1999, 1
in 2000, 5 in 2001, 1 in 2002,
7, 6, 3, and 30 respectively at
four new subpopulations in
2010, 20 in 2011.
7. SH 230 ROW................. Houston............... 1978; 2002............ 50 in 1991, 58 in 1993, 38 in
1994, 1 in 1995, 2 in 1996, 6
in 1997, 8-13 in 1998, 14 in
1999, 8 in 2000, 4 in 2001, 12
in Sept. 2002, none in Oct.
2002, none in 2003, 2004, 2005,
and 2011.
8. Lovelady................... Houston............... 2011.................. 50-70 in 1991, 7 in 1992, 58 in
1993, several hundred in 2001,
400 in 2002, 539 in 2011.
9. Mill Creek Gardens Nacogdoches........... 1995; 2011............ 96 in 1995, hundreds in Oct.
(introduced). 2011.
10. Harrison site............. Harrison.............. Not observed after Herbarium specimen was recently
1980. confirmed as H. dasycalyx, but
site has not been observed
since 1980.
11. Champion site............. Trinity............... 1996; 2001............ Hundreds in 1997, 300-400 in
2001.
12. Camp Olympia.............. Trinity............... 1977; 1992............ No estimates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Populations along SH ROWs include Hwy 94 in Trinity County,
collected in 1955 (Blake 1958, p. 277); Hwy 204 in Cherokee County,
first observed in 1992; and Hwy 230 in Houston County, first observed
in 1978. The TPWD performed annual SH ROW monitoring along Hwy 94 from
1993 thru 2001 (Poole, 2001, p. 1); along Hwy 204 from 1993 thru 2003
(Poole 2001, p. 1; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 20-28); and along Hwy 230 from 1993
thru 2001 (Poole 2001, p. 1). These three ROW populations are separated
from one another and are considered distinct. However, the Boggy Slough
site consists of several scattered rose-mallow subpopulations that are
located in close proximity to one another. Boggy Slough subpopulations
and the SH 94 ROW population are separated by no more than a distance
of 1.0 km (3, 280 ft), and these two sites likely constitute a single,
larger population, sharing pollinators, and exchanging genetic material
(NatureServe 2004, p. 6; Poole 2011c, p. 2). Therefore, in Table 4,
they are combined and represented as a single location.
Adjacent lands to the SH 230 ROW were purchased by the Texas Land
Conservancy (TLC) in 2004 (TLC 2011, http://www.texaslandconservancy.org). The rose-mallow plants in this site,
referred to as Lovelady, are part of a population that included the
rose-mallow plants in the SH 230 ROW. The rose-mallow plants within the
SH 230 ROW have not been observed since 2002, and the site is
considered
[[Page 55976]]
extirpated (TXNDD 2012a, pp. 61-67). The Lovelady site was recently
surveyed in 2011, and although 539 plants were found, most were in
notably poor condition, being much shorter in stature because of the
drought and herbivory (Poole 2012b, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 14-
19). The estimates of rose-mallow displayed in Table 4 show wide
variations in plant numbers. Some of this variation is due to
incomplete counts at the sites, in other words, only a portion of the
population was counted. Meaningful trends cannot be derived from these
population estimates.
Although annual monitoring of the ROW sites was discontinued in the
early 2000s, TPWD visited all of the ROW sites in October 2011. In the
past, along SH 204, several subpopulations existed along multiple
portions of the ROW; however, several of these subpopulations were gone
in 2011. The recent drought conditions have allowed surveyors to count
rose-mallow plants in parts of sites that were not accessible in the
past because the sites were too wet. The increase in numbers of plants
at some of the ROW sites may be partially attributed to this.
The Davy Crockett National Forest (NF), Houston County, Texas,
contains four extant sites of the rose-mallow, three introduced and one
natural. The one natural population is found in compartment 55 located
west of the Neches River. This site is considered the most robust of
all known extant populations (Poole 2011c, p. 3) and is almost entirely
unaltered from its originally observed state as a seasonally wet
flatwood pond, with vegetation being distinctly zoned (TXNDD 2012a, p.
29). The three introduced populations are located in compartment 16,
which started with 450 plants (Davis 2000, pers. comm.; McCormick 2002,
p. 1; USFWS 2000, p. 3), compartment 20 with 200-250 plants (Davis
2000, pers. comm.; McCormick 2002, p. 2; USFWS 2000, p. 3), and
compartment 11 with about 200 plants (Nemec 2005, pers. comm.). The
populations in compartments 16 and 20 were introduced in 2000, while
the population in compartment 11 was introduced in 2004 (USFWS 2007, p.
6). All four of the Davy Crockett NF sites were censused in October
2011 by the Service and TPWD, and all of the introduced sites on the
Davy Crockett National Forest have declined dramatically.
The four remaining rose-mallow sites have had sporadic monitoring
or have not been visited in recent years. In 1995, Stephen F. Austin
State University (SFASU) Mast Arboretum planted 96 rose-mallow plants
into a site at Mill Creek Gardens, Nacogdoches County (Scott 1997, pp.
6-7). A conservation easement was placed on this land, and now the site
is managed by the Arboretum. Rose-mallow plants at this site were
observed in 1997, 1998, 2001, 2009, and in 2011 (Creech 2011a, pers.
comm.). The introduced plants appear to be doing well; however,
nonnatives and native species are becoming more prevalent, and may
compete with the rose-mallow (Creech 2011c, pers. comm.). A rose-mallow
specimen collected on private lands in 1980 from Harrison County,
Texas, was presumed to be a halberdleaf rose-mallow specimen; however,
it has been recently confirmed (2011) to be the rose-mallow (Birnbaum
2011, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 12-13). The Harrison County site
has not been visited since 1980, but we presume that rose-mallow is
extant at this site since we have no evidence that the species is
extirpated. Two additional populations occur on private lands in
Trinity County; the Camp Olympia and Champion sites, discovered in 1977
and 1996, respectively. The current status of rose-mallow on the Camp
Olympia site is unknown since access has been denied. We consider this
site to be extant because we have no evidence that it has been
extirpated. The population on the Champion site was observed in 2011;
plants were seen, but no plants counts were done.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
Texas Golden Gladecress
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Habitat loss and degradation have been the primary cause of decline
in Texas golden gladecress during the last two decades. Permanent
removal or destruction of habitat by quarrying and pipeline
installation projects has eradicated several populations. Other habitat
alterations that are occurring across the species' range, with
potential to destroy or negatively alter gladecress' habitat, include
construction of well pads, buildings, roads, and poultry production
facilities. A historic and ongoing major threat to Texas golden
gladecress' habitat is the invasion by nonnative and native shrubs and
trees into the formerly open-sun, herbaceous, glade vegetation
communities. Grazing has been implicated as a habitat threat because it
is often associated with the encroachment of undesirable vegetation
into the outcrop habitat, and may lead to trampling of plants.
Agricultural herbicide use has some potential to damage emerging
gladecress seedlings. Severe and extended periods of drought,
anticipated to increase with projected changes in the climate, may
negatively affect a given year's reproductive effort by Texas golden
gladecress. These factors will be discussed in more detail below.
Glauconite Quarrying (Mining)
Glauconite, often called ``blue rock'' or ``green rock'' is used in
San Augustine and Sabine Counties for road construction and maintenance
by county road departments, the USDA Forest Service, and Louisiana
Parishes (McGee 2011, pers. comm.). Glauconite has also been used by
the oil and natural gas industry for roads and well pads, and demand by
the oil and gas industry is high (McGee 2011, pers. comm.). Glauconite
is also used as a component of fertilizer. A number of commercial
glauconite quarries or mines were in production by 1997, and subsequent
interest in its use grew because traditional pavement base materials
historically used in this region (iron ore and limestone) were becoming
harder to obtain and more expensive (Button and Little 1997, p. 14). A
representative of one mining company with four quarries in the San
Augustine and Sabine County area expressed an opinion that their mines
were sustainable for 15 to 20 years at the current level of demand
(McGee 2011, pers. comm.). We do not have a more quantified prediction
regarding demand and existing supply; therefore, we
[[Page 55977]]
cannot accurately predict future quarry development. Selection of
locations for glauconite quarries may target areas ``where the
glauconite can be seen on the surface'' (outcrops), although quarries
have also been dug on sites where the glauconite was not visible at the
surface (McGee 2011, pers. comm.).
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (2003, p. 9) noted that glauconite
quarrying (mining) in glades destroys habitat and is a significant
threat to the Texas golden gladecress. The majority of known habitat
was excavated at three of the eight historical populations (CCG Sites
2, 6, and 8) between 1996 and 2011, resulting in open pits at the
former habitat sites. The excavations removed all surface features
required by the gladecress, as well as killing individual plants.
Access to the Service has been denied at these sites, and we cannot
determine if any habitat or plants remain on the periphery of the
excavated quarries. The last recorded survey of plants at CCG Site 2
was on March 18, 1988, when the gladecress plants were described as
growing on the sloping Weches outcrop that was brush-hogged and burned
in 1988. Using available high-altitude photography taken between 1995
and 2009, supplemented with aerial photography from August 2010, it
appears that the glade was still intact as of 1995-1996, but that a
much larger area than the original population site was excavated by
2005. As of 2010, the entire population site and surrounding area looks
to be two large, side-by-side pits or ponds. We assume that the
populations are extirpated at this location.
The last information on plant numbers and conditions at the CCG
Sites 6 and 8 was collected on March 19 and April 24, 1987. At that
time, CCG Site 6 was recognized as the largest known viable population
of Texas golden gladecress. At this site, the gladecress grew in a
former pasture with thousands of fruiting plants in association with
other native glade plants in shallow bedrock pockets. The CCG Site 8
consisted of a very small population on a degraded Weches outcrop, with
scattered plants in fruit. Both elements of occurrence appeared to be
eliminated by a large, open-pit quarry in which digging started after
1996, with the entire area being one large pit by 2009.
The outcrops may actually attract glauconite quarrying interests
since the presence of an outcrop indicates that glauconite is close to
the surface. Glauconite mining can occur throughout the range of Texas
golden gladecress and has the potential to eradicate populations at
sites where quarries are dug. There is no requirement for permits, no
review of projects, and locations of future quarries are unknown. Based
on our review of the scientific information, we conclude that
excavation of pits for removal of glauconite, and associated glauconite
quarrying activities, pose a threat to the gladecress across the
species' range.
Natural Gas and Oil Exploration and Production
A principal threat to the habitat of Texas golden gladecress is the
removal or destruction of habitat (outcrops and immediate surrounding
land) by pipeline construction or from construction of buildings, well
pads, or roads to access drilling sites directly over habitat. Natural
gas pipeline installation requires trenching and clearing that can
destroy all gladecress habitat and plants within the pipeline ROW. In
addition to the destruction of habitat, excavation could conceivably
alter the hydrology of gladecress sites if the lowered elevation of the
excavation, or conversely, the increased ground elevation of a well pad
or other structure, diminishes the amount of water that can move
downslope over ground or through seeps. Adversely affecting the amount
and timing of water delivery could render outcrop ledges uninhabitable
for the species by interfering with the seeping or pooling action of
water on which the species depends.
The loss of habitat and plants in the footprint of well pads and
roads built for natural gas or oil exploration and production is a
continuing threat because there is high potential to affect remaining
glade habitat throughout the species' range. Numerous wells can be seen
from SH 21 between the cities of Nacogdoches and San Augustine, with at
least 30 wells visible along a 20-mile stretch of this road (Loos 2011,
pers. comm.; Rodewald 2011, pers. comm.). The materials brought in to
construct well pads and roads can directly cover habitat and plants,
causing partial or total loss of populations. Excavations, as well as
construction activities, that occur upslope of gladecress populations
may act to impede movement of water downslope, thereby interfering with
seeping and pooling of water needed by Texas golden gladecress. Concern
about the extent of this threat is elevated due to our lack of
information about potential gladecress populations across the Weches
Glades where surveys for the species have not been undertaken, but
where natural gas exploration and production is rapidly proceeding.
The entire known distribution of Texas golden gladecress is
underlain by the Haynesville Shale formation (also known as the
Haynesville/Bossier), recently recognized as a major natural gas source
for the United States. The Haynesville Shale, located at a depth
exceeding 11,000 ft (3,353 m), straddles the Texas-Louisiana border and
almost 70 percent of its production is from wells located in Texas
(Brathwaite 2009, p. 16). The Haynesville shale covers an area of
approximately 9,000 square miles (23,310 square km). A June 2010 map
shows the Haynesville Shale underlying the northwestern quarter of
Sabine County, the entire northern half of San Augustine County, and
the southeastern third of Nacogdoches County (Haynesville Shale Map
2010). Estimates of the natural gas contained in this formation's
reserves indicate that it could sustain anticipated energy needs for
well beyond the next several decades (http://www.haynesvilleshalelandowners.org; Brathwaite 2009, p. 16).
Technological improvements in exploration (3-dimensional seismic
surveys), drilling (horizontal wells), and well completion and
stimulation (hydrologic fracturing) have enhanced the productive
capability of natural gas shales throughout the United States,
including the Haynesville Shale.
Natural gas exploration and production has been rapidly expanding
within the Haynesville Shale, from the first significant production in
2005 to major development of the formation in 2009 (Brathwaite 2009, p.
16). Drilling activity over the entire Haynesville Shale peaked around
2009 or 2010 when approximately 200 drilling rigs were active. As of
September 18, 2011, approximately 130 rigs were actively drilling; the
slowdown being attributed to depressed natural gas prices (Murphy
2011a, p. 3). Even with natural gas prices down, most companies
continue to drill one well per gas unit on the Haynesville Shale in
order to maintain their leases (Murphy 2011a, p. 3). By September 2011,
as many as 1,500 wells had been drilled with many more anticipated,
along with perhaps another 10 years of active drilling on this
formation (Murphyb 2011, pp. 2-3).
The Texas Railroad Commission's (RRCs) online maps (available at
(http://gis2.rrc.state.tx.us/public/startit.htm) indicate that natural
gas (and some crude oil) gathering and transmission pipelines are found
throughout Nacogdoches County. In San Augustine County, the majority of
existing pipelines are located in the area north of SH 21 and west of
the town of San Augustine, an area of high glade
[[Page 55978]]
occurrence. To the east of San Augustine, there are fewer pipelines,
but, of those that are located in this area, several are large gas
transmission lines. One of these big transmission lines lies directly
adjacent to the historic CCG Site 7. Sabine County has several major
interstate pipelines, but fewer gathering and other transmission lines
than the other two counties, and no pipelines near the Sabine County
gladecress site (Texas Railroad Commission 2011).
The RRC regulates the oil and natural gas industry in the state of
Texas. The RRC has detailed information on all existing pipelines, but
the agency has no way to predict future routes for new pipelines or
wells; they are limited to location data found within permit
applications (Nunley 2011, pers. comm.). New pipelines, as well as ones
for which routes are being determined, do not display on the RRC Web
site, so although we are aware of the impact that pipeline excavations
can have on Texas golden gladecress, we cannot tell where future
pipelines may affect existing populations or suitable habitat.
Loss of gladecress habitat and plants is inevitable if pipelines
are routed directly through population sites. Pipeline installation
requires clearing of a path for the pipeline, cutting a trench in which
to lay the pipe, recovering of the trench, and restoring the ground's
surface. Clearing pipeline pathways eliminates obstacles to
construction (NaturalGas.Org., p. 2), which may include the rocky
outcrops supporting the Texas golden gladecress. Bulldozing the
pipeline path likely permanently removes these rocky ledges and other
features, along with the gladecress plants and seedbed. After the pipe
is put into the ground and the trench covered with soil, elevations are
restored and the surface is revegetated, generally using Cynodon
dactylon (coastal bermudagrass) in this region (Rodewald 2011, pers.
comm.). The Simpson Farms population, located 6 mi (9.7 km) east of the
city of Nacogdoches, was eliminated by a natural gas pipeline that was
installed sometime between August 2010 and October 2011 (date of
installation determined from comparison of successive years of aerial
photography). At this site, the pipeline ROW was approximately 75 ft
(23 m) wide and the entire area formerly occupied by the gladecress was
covered with deposited sediment or piles of cleared brush (Cobb 2011,
pers. comm.). Given the degree of clearing of the ROW and the adjacent
dirt work, the known extent of habitat is now gone and the entire
population has likely been extirpated (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.). The
Chapel Hill population may also be affected by future pipeline
construction; the route for a future pipeline was being surveyed in
October 2011 (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.). Although this pipeline does not
directly cross the very small population site between the pasture fence
and the road, it does lie parallel to, and just inside of, the fence
line in a pasture where gladecress habitat does exist (Singhurst 2012c,
pers. comm., Singhurst 2012f, pers. comm.).
The current trend over most natural gas shale formations is to
drill multiple wells, when possible, and well pad sizes can vary
accordingly. Well pad sizes in the San Augustine County area range from
several acres to as large as 14 ac (5.67 ha), depending on the number
of wells (Loos 2011, pers. comm.; Allen 2011b, pers. comm.). Although
most oil and gas companies use existing roads, occasionally the
companies need to build new roads, and in these cases the new routes
may go through outcrop areas. The fill for pads and roads could cover
portions of, or potentially entire, glade sites since some of the
glades are so small. Placement of pads or roads upslope of gladecress
sites may have the potential to affect downslope movement of water to
outcrop sites (Ritter 2011b, pers. comm.).
In summary, the remaining populations of Texas golden gladecress
and suitable habitat are within areas that are actively being drilled
for natural gas. Plants and habitat have been destroyed by the
construction of pipelines. The three remaining populations as well as
suitable habitat are at risk of being destroyed by construction of
natural gas and oil infrastructure (pipelines, well pads, metering
stations, and roads) that continue to be constructed throughout the
species' range. Exploration and production of natural gas and oil is
anticipated to continue in this area for at least the next decade.
Texas golden gladecress and its habitat may be directly impacted by the
construction of pipelines and other infrastructure, and indirectly by
altering the hydrology near occupied sites and suitable habitat. Based
on our review of the scientific information, we conclude that natural
gas and oil development is a threat to Texas golden gladecress.
Residential and Commercial Construction
Although residential and commercial construction was listed in the
species' candidate assessments as a potential threat, there is no
evidence that this type of disturbance has affected Texas golden
gladecress populations. Historically, site selection for building homes
and businesses in the town of San Augustine may have taken advantage of
the open aspect of the glades--Leavenworth described the area in which
he originally collected the species (vicinity of the town of San
Augustine) as ``prairies'' (Bridges 1988, p. II-5). However,
information about former glades in the area is lacking, as is
documentation that the gladecress was present where buildings are
currently located. Neither San Augustine nor Sabine Counties are
experiencing rapid human population growth--San Augustine County saw a
0.9 percent decline in population from 8,946 to 8,865 between 2000 and
2010 while Sabine County had a modest increase of 3.5 percent (10,469
to 10,834) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a,b), suggesting that residential
and associated commercial development does not constitute a high level
of threat to habitat throughout the species' range.
Proliferation of poultry farms was also listed as a potential
threat to Texas golden gladecress habitat. Building poultry production
houses and associated facilities would cover gladecress habitat in the
same manner as would residential or other types of commercial
construction. Aerial photography from November 2011 (Google Earth,
November 17, 2011) shows 21 poultry farms within the gladecress' range
(the approximate zone of the Weches Formation) in Sabine and San
Augustine Counties. Of the 21 total, 18 are located on the San
Augustine County Weches Formation. None of the existing farms is
adjacent to any of the known population locations, and we are unable to
determine if any gladecress habitat or plants were lost when these
production facilities were built. Among the characteristics in East
Texas that make a site desirable for poultry production are long, flat
stretches of ground with a good, solid hardpan as opposed to rocky
outcrops on slopes, the tops of ridges, or in low-lying areas (Ritter
2012, pers. comm.), such as those occupied by the gladecress. This
site-selection preference means that poultry producers would most
likely avoid gladecress habitat. In the last 2 years, most of the
poultry farm construction has taken place in counties north of San
Augustine and Sabine, and the only activity in the Weches Formation
zone has been renovations to existing farms (Ritter 2012, pers. comm.).
The construction of poultry farms is not considered a threat to Texas
golden gladecress because poultry farm site selection does not appear
to have significant overlap with gladecress habitat.
[[Page 55979]]
Roads
The portion of the CCG Site 1 population that occurred in the SH
ROW was impacted when Sunrise Road was widened and straightened in the
1990's (Singhurst 2012g, pers. comm.); however, not all plants were
destroyed. A 2011 list of TxDOT planned projects does not show any
future road improvements or expansions near known gladecress population
sites. Based on the best available information, we conclude that new
road construction or improvements to the existing roads does not pose a
threat to the gladecress at the three extant sites.
Invasive Species
A major stressor to the habitat of Texas golden gladecress is the
ongoing invasion of nonnative and native shrubs and trees into the
formerly open-sun, herbaceous, glade vegetation communities. This
woody, weedy plant invasion is occurring on at least a portion of all
three remaining population sites. Additionally, the historic CCG Site 7
appears, from 2010 aerial photography, to be almost 100 percent
overgrown with woody vegetation.
Glades in most parts of the United States are declining due to
grazing, fire suppression, and the subsequent invasion by woody
vegetation. In presettlement times, glades were maintained by periodic
fires and browsing of woody vegetation by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) and elk (Cervus canadensis). This natural disturbance
regime changed over the last century due to active fire suppression and
diminished numbers of browsers reduced by hunting pressure (Rossiter
1995, p. 2). Although the harsh environment of glades helps to preclude
tree establishment, without disturbance such as fire, woody plants will
invade (Hartman 2005, p. 4). The exclusion of fire has allowed
encroachment of trees, shrubs, vines, and other woody plants into glade
communities (Borland 2008, p. 3).
As woody plants mature, they produce canopies that reduce the
amount of sunlight reaching the ground. Sun-loving plants like Texas
golden gladecress that are adapted to hot, dry sites do not tolerate
shade well. Research conducted in Missouri's cedar glades showed that
herbaceous plant production rapidly declined when red cedar cover
exceeded more than one third of a glade's area (Rossiter 1995, p. 3). A
combination of reduced sunlight (shading) and increased leaf litter can
act to suppress herbaceous species (Hartman 2005, p. 2). These types of
changes in glades that were historically hot and dry can contribute to
cooling of the ground and enhancing of moisture content. Wetter, cooler
conditions during traditionally hot, dry summer months may be counter-
productive for sun-loving glade species by encouraging invasion by cool
season vegetation and exotic species. Buildup of a deeper organic layer
can also facilitate the establishment of woody plants that results in
further shading of the ground (Hartman 2005, p. 2).
Invading species can also compete directly with Texas golden
gladecress for water and nutrients. Interspecific competition has been
noted as potentially causing reduction in the extent of the root system
in several small outcrop plant species, thereby reducing their nutrient
uptake (Baskin and Baskin 1988, p. 836). Shading further stresses the
herbaceous layer, including the gladecress. In Missouri, stressed glade
communities were more prone to invasion from invasive species like
Schedonorus phoenix (tall fescue), Sericea lespedeza (Chinese
bushclover), and Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose) (Hartman 2005, p.
4). On Texas' Weches Glades, Carr (2005) reported tall fescue at the
Chapel Hill site, and Macartney rose was listed as a major invading
species in pastures throughout the range of Texas golden gladecress.
The Weches outcrops that parallel SH 21 appear to support the heaviest
Macartney rose infestation in San Augustine County (Ritter 2011a, pers.
comm.). A 1995 report by the Service's Clear Lake Ecological Services'
Field Office described known white bladderpod sites, including several
with gladecress, all of which needed active management to preclude
invasion by woody shrubs (Nemec 1996, p. 1).
Texas golden gladecress habitat has been documented since the
1980's to be affected by an accelerated succession from open herbaceous
Weches outcrops to dense shrub thickets and closed canopy woodlands
(USFWS 1992, p. 7; Carr 2005, p. 2; Nemec 1996, p. 4). The most serious
invaders are included in Table 5. Encroachment of these species is
thought to suppress the less competitive components of the community
like Texas golden gladecress and white bladderpod (TNC 2003, p. 4).
Some of these invasive species can grow on the shallow outcrop soils,
while others can invade open space around the edges of the outcrop
ledges (USFWS 1992, p. 7). Some of the native invading species are
likely controlled by occasional wildfire under natural conditions. More
serious are the introduced invaders, including the small hop clover
that can cover Weches outcrops and eliminate other vegetation. The
introduced shrubs, including Macartney rose and Japanese honeysuckle,
will invade open space, including gladecress habitat (USFWS 1992, p.
7).
Table 5--Primary Invasive Species Found in Texas Golden Gladecress
Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific name Common name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonnative Species ...............................
Rosa bracteata......................... Macartney rose
Lonicera japonica...................... Japanese honeysuckle
Stellaria media........................ chick-weed
Bromus japonicus....................... Japanese brome
Kummerowia striata..................... Japanese bush-clover
Ligustrum japonicum.................... Japanese privet
Meliotus indicus....................... sour clover
Cynodon dactylon....................... coastal bermudagrass
Trifolium dubium....................... small hop clover
Native Species
Andropogon virginicus.................. broomsedge
Plantago virginica..................... pale-seeded plantain
Euphorbia sp........................... spurge
Frangula caroliniana................... Carolina buckthorn
Rhamnus lanceolata..................... lanceleaf buckthorn
Crataegus monogyna..................... hawthorn
Prunus mexicana........................ Mexican plum
[[Page 55980]]
Viburnum prunifolium................... blackhaw viburnum
Rhus glabra............................ smooth sumac
Ulmus alata............................ winged elm
Berchemia scandens..................... Alabama supplejack
Cissus incisa.......................... ivy treebine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three extant Texas golden gladecress sites have shrubs and
trees encroaching into formerly open glade habitat. At the Chapel Hill
site, Carr (2005, p. 2) noted that 13 scattered pines within a 6,000-
square-foot (557-square-meter) area produced a total canopy coverage of
less than 10 percent of site, but indicated that future shading effects
when the pine trees reach maturity, might prove detrimental. At this
same site, other woody plants were controlled, but not eliminated, by
regular shredding (Carr 2005, p. 2).
Texas golden gladecress does show some ability to persist at sites
that have been overrun by woody vegetation. At the Geneva site, the
area with the gladecress was bulldozed, and although the site was
reported as destroyed, the species reappeared within several years. At
the Chapel Hill site, brush removal actions to benefit white bladderpod
also resulted in the reappearance of the gladecress after its apparent
absence for 10 years. This suggests that the gladecress' seed bank may
be able to remain viable over extended time periods even though the
habitat is overgrown by woody species.
Nonnative and native woody species, including woody shrubs, vines,
and trees, continue to degrade Texas golden gladecress' habitat across
the species' entire range. This threat is significant for the species
because it is ubiquitous and has led to declines, or disappearance as
in the Chapel Hill site, in the gladecress populations, along with
altering its habitat. Based on our review of the scientific
information, we conclude that invasion of woody and weedy nonnative and
native plants into gladecress habitat is a threat across its range.
Habitat Damage Associated With Grazing
Grazing has been implicated as a habitat threat because it can
facilitate the encroachment of undesirable vegetation into the outcrop
habitat, and because it may lead to trampling of plants and soil
compaction. Historically, the introduction of grazing livestock into
East Texas, coupled with heavy grazing pressure, adversely impacted
glade sites by facilitating the spread of invasive woody plants, and
potentially trampling native plants. Acting in concert with fire
suppression, heavy grazing pressure may have accelerated conversion of
the grassy prairies and herbaceous glades to the dense, thorny masses
of vegetation seen at many sites today (Nemec 1996, p. 4; USFWS 1992,
p. 7). Overgrazing of Texas golden gladecress' habitat can promote
invasion by woody species and enhance competition on the glade from
herbaceous weeds like pale-seeded plantain, Japanese brome, and spurge
(USFWS 1992, p. 7). Grazing livestock serve as a source of introduced
species' seeds as well as supplying nutrients for competitive native
weedy species. Grazing animals can also encourage unpalatable invasive
species like Macartney rose to move into areas where more preferred
natives have been grazed out (Bridges 1988, p. II-35). The negative
impacts to gladecress habitat from woody plant invasion are detailed in
the ``Invasive Species'' section.
There is no documentation of gladecress plants being lost due to
trampling. Potential does exist for this to happen, for example, at the
Geneva Site, where gladecress plants have been observed growing
directly adjacent to and inside the fence where a cow trail is evident.
Loss of plants in this small area has not been confirmed and the larger
part of this population grows in the SH 21 ROW where no grazing takes
place, so it is unlikely that trampling at this site truly constitutes
a threat. Grazing also occurs within the fenced private portions of the
other two remaining gladecress population sites (CCG Site 1 and Chapel
Hill), where individual plants may be subject to trampling if they are
growing directly in cattle trails.
Grazing does occur on portions of the three extant population
sites, but we do not have information to show that grazing has
destroyed Texas golden gladecress habitat or plants. Based on our
review of the scientific information, we conclude that the direct
effects of grazing are not a threat to Texas golden gladecress.
Land Conversion for Agriculture and Silviculture
Another potential habitat threat is conversion of Weches Glade
outcrops to nonnative grass pastures or conversion of existing pasture
lands that may contain viable outcrops to pine tree plantations. Over
the last 200 years, most of the native vegetation communities of East
Texas were dramatically altered by human activities as the region was
logged and extensively cultivated (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 76). Due to
widespread land use changes throughout the entire range of the
gladecress, and the fact that the glade areas were always somewhat
small and surrounded by forest, there is a high likelihood that some
glades were negatively affected by past agricultural and silvicultural
land cover conversions (USFWS 1992, p. 7). At least one gladecress
population was described as being lost to this type of land use change
during the 1980's (Turner unpubl. data in TNC 2003, p. 2).
Conversion of native vegetation communities to pasture or row crop
in the region is much less common now. The Weches outcrops are not
considered desirable substrate for planting to pasture as landowners
are not interested in deep plowing, breaking up, or dragging out rocks
(Ritter 2011a, pers. comm.). The ``Redland'' soils that are exposed in
the Weches outcrops are thin and rocky. The Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) recommends avoiding these soils because
there are not practical conservation practices for these types of sites
(Ritter 2011a, pers. comm.). The more prevalent land use change now is
from pasture to tree plantation (Ritter 2011a, pers. comm.). Within the
last few years, many Sabine and San Augustine County landowners have
shifted from grazing to timber planting (Ritter 2011a, pers. comm.).
Most timber planting consists of Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) and Pinus
palustris (longleaf pine); planted on 8-10 ft (2.4-3 m) centers.
Although landowners will likely avoid planting directly onto Weches
outcrops because these rocky soils will not support trees, it is
conceivable that the spacing between plantings would allow
[[Page 55981]]
trees to be planted near the edges of outcrops (Ritter 2011a, pers.
comm., Ritter 2012, pers. comm.). As these trees mature, their canopies
may potentially cause shading problems on glade areas (see Invasive
Species Section for explanation of negative effects of shading). For
example, it appears that former habitat adjacent to the Chapel Hill
site may be planted, in part, to rows of trees.
In addition to shading, pine tree plantings may also result in
production of large amounts of pine needle litter that could accumulate
in small glade openings near the trees. Where a mid-story of trees
develops, light may be blocked from reaching the ground level by upper-
canopy and mid-story shading; with a subsequent build-up of leaf
litter, the herbaceous species can be suppressed. In the face of fire
suppression, Missouri glades became choked with litter that kept the
ground more moist and cool, leading to replacement of the sun-loving
natives by invading cool-season vegetation and exotic species (Hartman
(2005, pp. 2-4).
Based on our review of the scientific information, we conclude that
planting of pine tree plantations, if in close proximity to occupied
glade openings, can constitute a threat to Texas golden gladecress.
Herbicide Use
The candidate assessments for Texas golden gladecress list
herbicide use in highway ROWs and for agricultural purposes as a
potential threat to the species because of the plant's occurrence
within highway ROW's and in pastures. Herbicide use to maintain highway
and county road ROW's has the potential to destroy the small
subpopulations that exist in the TxDOT ROW's at the Geneva and CCG 1
sites. If timing of the herbicide application coincides with the
growing and reproductive period of the year for the gladecress, all
individuals that are growing in the ROW might potentially be extirpated
if the herbicide contacts all gladecress individuals in these small
sites. Herbicide exposure from highway and county road maintenance
would affect only a small portion of two extant sites, and recent
information suggests that use of herbicides for state and county roads
in this area is not a widespread practice (Adams 2011b, pers. comm.;
Hunter 2011, pers. comm.). We do not have documentation of negative
impacts to the species from herbicide applications for road
maintenance. The TxDOT uses herbicides only on an ``as needed'' basis
to eliminate encroaching woody plants or along the edges of the road
pavement (Adams 2011b, pers. comm.). San Augustine County does not use
herbicides for county roadside maintenance due to costs (Hunter 2011,
pers. comm.).
With regard to agricultural herbicide use in San Augustine and
Sabine Counties, the NRCS has a program to assist landowners with
Macartney rose control using Grazon[supreg] P+D herbicide. This program
involves a 3-year approach--broadcast spraying from a tractor during
the first 2 years, followed by individual plant treatments in the third
year. Grazon[supreg] P+D has active ingredients of picloram and 2,4-D
(dichlor) and can persist in some soils for months and act as a
preemergent, killing germinating seedlings. In an appendix to TNC's
Conservation Area Plan for the San Augustine Glades (TNC 2003, pp. 30-
31), it is one of several herbicides identified as potentially harmful
to the gladecress and white bladderpod if used near their habitats.
Management recommendations included avoiding use of this herbicide
within 200 yards (yd) (183 m) of areas described as habitat within the
region, along with limiting timing of use to spot treatments only July
1-August 30. Because Macartney rose is infesting the region of the
Weches outcrops, and since this exotic invader is capable of
establishing itself in Weches Glades and has been noted as occurring at
gladecress population sites, it is reasonable to assume that some areas
of glade habitat are included in these treatment programs. So although
control of Macartney rose would likely benefit the gladecress in the
long term, application of a preemergent herbicide has the potential to
eliminate the gladecress altogether if it stays in the soil long enough
to kill emerging seedlings. We have no evidence that this type of
application has affected Texas golden gladecress populations to date.
Based on our review of the scientific information, we conclude that
using preemergent herbicides such as Grazon P+D that persist in the
soil for brush control could constitute a threat to Texas golden
gladecress emerging seedlings.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or
longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007a, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been
faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate
system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of
the world and decreases in other regions. For these and other examples,
see IPCC 2007a, p. 30 and Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85.
Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of
the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th
century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, and is
``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC
2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007, pp.
21-35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by
Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely
that approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been
caused by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007,
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield
very similar projections of increases in the most common measure of
climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as
global warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the
magnitude and rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall
trajectory of all the projections is one of increased global warming
through the end of this century, even for the projections based on
scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline.
Thus, there is strong scientific support for projections that
[[Page 55982]]
warming will continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude
and rate of change will be influenced substantially by the extent of
GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44-45; Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764
and 797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011,
pp. 527, 529). (See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other global
projections of climate-related changes, such as frequency of heat waves
and changes in precipitation. Also see IPCC 2011 (entire) for a summary
of observations and projections of extreme climate events.)
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
(e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-14, 18-19).
Identifying likely effects often involves aspects of climate change
vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a
species (or system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse
effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity,
and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al.
2011, pp. 19-22). There is no single method for conducting such
analyses that applies to all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We
use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we
conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be
affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it
does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a
species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from,
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
The climate in Texas has shown a long-term gradual warming trend--
pollen, plant macrofossils (fossils large enough to be seen without a
microscope), packrat middens (ancient ``garbage piles'' left by rodents
in the genus Neotoma), and other evidence show substantial climate
changes in Texas over the past 15,000 years (end of the last glacial
period) when the mean annual air temperature was
9[emsp14][deg]Farenheit (F) (5 [deg]Centigrade ([deg]C)) cooler than
present (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 73). The Texas climate is considered
highly variable with seasonal precipitation patterns that dramatically
increase from west to east, and temperatures that increase from north
to south (Nielsen-Gammon 2008, p.1). Climate models predict increased
temperatures, and concurrent increased evapotranspiration, and
decreased regular precipitation and soil moisture in Texas (Diggs et
al. 2006, p. 73.), all of which would have negative implications for
Texas golden gladecress. Based on a climate model developed by the
United Kingdom Hadley Center (HadCM2), temperatures in Texas could
increase by 3[emsp14][deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) in spring (range of 1-
6[emsp14][deg]F (0.6-3.3 [deg]C)) and about 4[emsp14][deg]F (2.2
[deg]C) in other seasons (with range of 1-9[emsp14][deg]F (0.6-5
[deg]C)).
Droughts are not uncommon in Texas (Texas Water Resources Institute
2011, pp. 1-13). The most severe drought recorded in Texas occurred in
the 1950's, and in the last 15 years there have been widespread
droughts: In 1996, 1999-2000, 2005-2006, 2007, 2010-2011 (Texas Water
Resources Institute 2011, pp. 10-12). Projections are for winter
precipitation to decrease by 5-30 percent although it may increase by
10 percent in other seasons (Environmental Protection Agency 1997, p.
2).
East Texas is subtropical with a wide range of extremes in weather
(Diggs et al 2006, p. 65). Mean annual temperatures range from
70[emsp14][deg]F (21 [deg]C) in the south to approximately
64[emsp14][deg]F (18 [deg]C) in the north, although extremes like
0[emsp14][deg]F (-18 [deg]C) and 110[emsp14][deg]F (43 [deg]C) are
observed occasionally. The highest reported eastern Texas temperature
was 118[emsp14][deg]F (48 [deg]C) in Collin County in 1936 (Bomar 1995
in Diggs et al. 2006, p. 65). Average rainfall ranges from 60 in (152
cm) at the State's southeastern border to 40 in (98 c) at the western
edge. These rainfall differences are related to proximity to the warm,
moist air supplied by the Gulf of Mexico. The native vegetation of this
region evolved with, and is adapted to, recurrent extremes (Diggs et
al. 2006, p. 67). That said, the Pineywoods region is vulnerable to
even small climatic shifts because it is ``balanced'' on the eastern
edge of a dramatic precipitation gradient. Temperature increases that
are projected in climate change scenarios will likely be associated
with increases in transpiration and more frequent summer droughts.
Decreased rainfall may result in an eastward shift in the forest
boundary and replacement of the Pineywoods forest with scrubland (Diggs
et al. 2006, p. 80). There is potential for loss of species that are
limited to mesic conditions of deep East Texas, such as the hardwood
forests surrounding the Weches Glades. There may also be a northerly
shift of southerly species based on climate models that predict
increasing temperatures and, therefore, increasing evapotranspiration
and decreasing regional precipitation and soil moisture (Diggs et al.
2006, p. 73).
Although East Texas has typically received a greater amount of
precipitation during December through March than other regions
(Neilsen-Gammon, p. 24), future precipitation trends indicate a
decrease in precipitation toward the middle of the 21st century
(Nielsen-Gammon, p. 28). The timing of this precipitation is crucial
for the Texas golden gladecress, which is dependent on late-fall-
through-spring moisture to generate the seeps and pooling that it
requires for germination, growth, and reproduction. Reproduction is
known to be negatively impacted by drought as evidenced by declines of
91 to 67 plants at the Chapel Hill site and 490 to 96 plants at the CCG
Site 1 during the 1999-2000 droughts (USFWS 2010b, p. 5; Singhurst
2011a, pers. comm.). It is unknown how the gladecress will respond to
continued years of drought, especially when combined with other
threats.
A warmer climate with more frequent droughts, but also extreme
precipitation events, may adversely affect Texas golden gladecress by
altering the glade habitat the species is known to occupy. It may also
improve habitat conditions for invasive plant species and other plants
(USFWS 2010b, p. 5). Climate extremes, especially drought and low
temperatures, probably play a bigger role in excluding nonadapted
species than average conditions will (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 80).
Because the gladecress is a habitat specialist, being closely tied to
the geology and soils on the Weches outcrops, it seems unlikely that
this species will be flexible in terms of shifting to new habitats if
the glades become unsuitable due to lack of winter-spring moisture.
Also, if conditions shift in favor of nonnatives, the gladecress will
likely be negatively affected. Although the gladecress has survived
cycles of drought in the past, as well as some years with extraordinary
temperature shifts, it may have done so in a landscape where it was
more abundant and with populations distributed in closer proximity to
one another. Based on our review, the best
[[Page 55983]]
scientific and commercial information did not provide us with
information regarding the species' seedbank so we do not know how many
consecutive years of poor conditions (in terms of low rainfall and high
temperatures) the species can survive.
We lack firm predictions for future patterns of precipitation and
temperature that are specific to East Texas. While it appears
reasonable to assume that climate change will occur within the range of
Texas golden gladecress, at this time we do not have information to
indicate specifically how climate change may affect the species or its
habitat. However, we do know from recent records that frequent and
sustained droughts have resulted in declines, at least in the short
term, in the remaining populations.
Other Conservation Efforts
Texas golden gladecress has benefitted to a limited degree from its
co-occurrence at some sites with the federally listed white bladderpod.
Management activities (brush clearing) carried out in 1995 at the
Chapel Hill site for the white bladderpod resulted in a return of the
gladecress after a 10-year absence (Nemec 1996, p. 5). However,
nonnative shrubs quickly reinvaded the site, and repeated maintenance
was needed. The landowner at this site has continued to mow at least
once per year, keeping the habitat relatively open (Singhurst 2012f,
pers. comm.), and the gladecress and bladderpod continue to occupy this
site. A Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program project involving
restoration of habitat (brush clearing) and planting of white
bladderpod was planned to benefit both species although the gladecress
has not been detected at the site to date.
The Service funded several projects with TNC, including one that
provided for 3 years of status surveys for gladecress and bladderpod.
These were completed in 2006 and were the sole source of population
numbers for these species for several years. The TNC also identified a
total of 44 potential sites for both plant species using GIS data
(aerial, geology, and hydrology sources) and obtained permission to
visit 14 of them, but found little Weches habitat and no new gladecress
populations (Turner 2003, p. 4).
In the early 2000's, the Service collaborated with Mercer Arboretum
and other partners, including TNC and the Pineywoods Native Plant
Center at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, to
collect gladecress seeds for cultivation, research, and long-term
storage, and as seed sources for reintroduction work. Seeds were kept
by Mercer Arboretum for long-term storage as well as germination and
cultivation work. Nothing has been done recently with gladecress
research or reintroduction efforts. The species was successfully
introduced into apparently appropriate habitat in Nacogdoches County at
a site located approximately 30 mi (48 km) west of its historic range
in the late 1980's, where it grew and reproduced through 2011 when it
was eradicated by construction of a pipeline. The success of this
reintroduction project may bode well for future efforts to increase the
numbers of populations by reintroductions or introductions to new
sites.
Summary of Factor A
The highest levels of threat to Texas golden gladecress are the
loss and degradation of habitat. Specifically, surface quarrying of
glauconite and the exploration and development of oil and natural gas
wells and associated roads and pipelines have destroyed 50 percent of
the known populations between the mid 1990's and 2011. These threats
are likely to continue since glauconite is currently in demand for road
bed, well pad construction, and for fertilizer, and development of the
natural gas-bearing Haynesville Shale, which underlies the entire range
of Texas golden gladecress, has been very rapid during the last several
years. Portions of two extant populations extend into SH ROW's where
TxDOT has the ability to provide some protections. Nevertheless, much
of the species' potential habitat throughout the range occurs on
private lands that, due to lack of access, have not been surveyed;
therefore, the current level of threats across these lands cannot be
assessed. Surface quarrying of glauconite and oil and gas development
pose significant threats to the known extant populations and associated
habitats of the gladecress.
Texas golden gladecress also faces threats throughout its range
from competition for light and nutrients from both native and nonnative
invasive woody plants, including the nonnative Macartney rose. We have
determined that the extant populations will decline or become
extirpated unless they are periodically maintained to remove invading
trees and shrubs. Additionally, herbicides used to control Macartney
rose may be a threat to the gladecress if applied or persisting in the
soil during the species' period of growth, from fall through early
summer.
A recent, ongoing trend in local land use is the conversion of open
pasture to pine plantations. We found no evidence that grazing and
trampling by livestock may be a threat to the species, and we believe
that pastures provide suitable habitat for the sun-loving gladecress.
However, densely planted pine trees may degrade the species' habitat
due to competition for light and nutrients, and by contributing masses
of leaf litter onto formerly sparsely vegetated glades.
Finally, the information regarding climate change is not yet
specific enough for us to determine the potential long-term effects to
the gladecress habitat. However, long-term drought has negatively
affected and will likely continue to negatively affect the reproduction
and germination of gladecress seeds. Therefore, we conclude that Texas
golden gladecress faces significant threats from habitat loss,
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or
range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Limited collection of gladecress has occurred for scientific
purposes; only voucher specimens and several seed collection events are
documented. Dr. Elray Nixon collected seed in 1987 and successfully
created a new population when he introduced the seed onto an outcrop in
Nacogdoches County. The Mercer Arboretum, a participating institution
in the Center for Plant Conservation, collected seed in 2001--
maintaining some in long-term storage and planting some in germination
trials. There are no records of any collections of seeds or other plant
materials in the last few years. Because these collections were
limited, we do not believe that this activity constituted a threat to
the species. There is no information to suggest that Texas golden
gladecress is collected for commercial, recreational, or educational
purposes, and we have no reason to believe that this factor will become
a threat to the species in the future. Therefore, based on our review
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we
conclude that collection or overutilization of Texas golden gladecress
is not a threat to the species.
C. Disease or Predation
There is no available information regarding disease in Texas golden
gladecress. There is no information regarding predation by wildlife on
the species. Grazing is ongoing across the range of the gladecress and
occurs on portions of all extant population sites; however, there is no
information to document that cattle eat gladecress. No studies have
been conducted to investigate the effect of grazing or
[[Page 55984]]
herbivory specifically on Texas golden gladecress. George (1987, p. 17)
studied the herbaceous flora of three Weches outcrops in San Augustine
County and saw little grazing within his study plots although cattle
were present at all three sites. Therefore, based on our review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that
disease and predation on Texas golden gladecress, including predation
associated with grazing, are not threats to the species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any,
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * * .'' In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give
strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to
management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An
example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State
statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist,
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or
remove threats to the Texas golden gladecress.
The greatest threats to the gladecress include loss of habitat and
the plants themselves due to actions that remove the substrate under
the populations or that cover them up. These types of actions have been
associated with quarrying of glauconite; construction related to
natural gas and oil exploration and production; conversion of native
glades or pastures with glades and outcrops to other land uses, most
recently planting to pine plantations; and potentially herbicide
applications for purposes of controlling the invasive Macartney rose.
State and Federal regulations that might help conserve rare species on
State highway ROWs, including avoidance or minimization of habitat
destruction, as well as regulations that would protect plants from
herbicide applications, are requirements only for already listed
species; therefore, these regulations do not apply to gladecress.
Likewise, no existing regulations protect the species on privately
owned land, where most of the remnant gladecress is found.
Currently, Texas golden gladecress is not protected by State or
Federal laws. All of the populations occur on private property, and
portions of those populations extend onto SH ROWs. As such, there are
no regulatory mechanisms in place to address the threats to the
species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Small Population Size
The Texas golden gladecress remains in only three small
populations. Small populations can be prone to extirpation, especially
if a series of drought years greatly reduces seed production and
depletes the soil seed bank. The Service (1992, p. 8) noted that for a
species like the white bladderpod, with only small populations and wide
natural annual fluctuations in plant numbers, as well as fragmented
habitat across its range, recolonization after a population loss would
require long-distance seed dispersal. Although we have no information
regarding the gladecress' seed dispersal patterns or distances, we do
know that the gladecress' habitat is exceedingly fragmented, with fewer
and smaller known populations than the bladderpod, and further
distances between populations. This makes the prospects for
recolonization after a potential loss of a gladecress population very
remote.
Small populations can also be prone to extirpation from a single
adverse natural or manmade event. The population at the Chapel Hill
site is a good example of this vulnerability. Carr (2005, p. 2)
reported that Texas golden gladecress habitat was extremely limited at
Chapel Hill and that the numbers of gladecress plants would also always
be restricted by the small size of the available habitat. He concluded
that the population was so small that a single adverse event could
extirpate the species from this location. The small population size and
the small number of extant populations of gladecress increases each
population's vulnerability to the significant threats listed in Factor
A. Low numbers of plants, confined to very small areas, can be totally
eradicated by actions such as installation of pipelines, excavation of
mines, or construction of well pads, roads, or other types of
construction. The remaining gladecress occurrences are so small that
they can fall completely within the footprint of one well pad, or even
within the width of a pipeline excavation. Small population size also
increases the risk of total loss of populations due to contact with
herbicides or shading and leaf litter accumulation from pine tree
plantings because these threats are likely to affect the entirety of
any given occurrence. Sustained drought may reduce the reproductive
effort of a population, and this can lead to an overall decrease in
fitness for the remaining populations. Reduced reproductive effort
affects the seed bank, which represents the reproductive capacity of
each gladecress population. The combined effects of drought, impacts
from oil and gas development, herbicide treatment, shading, and
competition place the remaining three populations at a high extinction
risk, exacerbated by their small population size and narrow
distribution.
In addition to increasing vulnerability to direct threats such as
pipeline construction, small population size can result in a decrease
in genetic diversity due to genetic drift (the random change in genetic
variation in each generation) and inbreeding (mating of related
individuals) (Antonovics 1976, p. 238; Ellstram and Elam 1993, pp. 218-
219). Genetic drift can decrease genetic variation within a population
by favoring certain characteristics and, thereby, increasing
differences between populations (Ellstram and Elam 1993, pp. 218-219).
This increased difference between populations can diminish a species'
ability to adapt to the selective pressures of a changing environment
(Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 360; Ellstrand 1992, p. 77). Self-
fertilization and low dispersal rates can cause low genetic diversity
due to inbreeding (Antonovics 1976, p. 238; Barrett and Kohn 1991, p.
21).
Although we do know that Texas golden gladecress exists in small
populations in a fragmented landscape, no information is available
regarding the genetic diversity exhibited by the species.
Summary of Factor E
Texas golden gladecress is a historically rare species with some
adaptations, such as a mixed mating system, that help to alleviate part
of the
[[Page 55985]]
inherent risks of small population size. The continued existence of
Texas golden gladecress is negatively impacted by natural factors
including being limited to only a few remaining populations that
contain very small numbers of individual plants with a distribution
restricted to extremely small areas of outcrop. The species' current,
reduced occurrences across a range that has been highly fragmented by
past and ongoing human activities increases its vulnerability. With
only three remaining populations, loss of an entire population could be
catastrophic for this species' long-term viability. Therefore, based on
our review of the best available scientific and commercial information,
we conclude that the small number of remaining populations, all of
which are small in size, in conjunction with the threats described in
Factor A, constitutes a threat to the species.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
available information regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Texas golden gladecress and have determined that the species
warrants listing as an endangered species throughout its range.
Significant factors that support this determination include the
following: (1) Loss of five of eight known populations and their
associated habitat (Factor A); (2) the ongoing threat of loss or severe
degradation of habitat on portions of the three remaining population
sites from glauconite quarrying activities, oil and gas development,
pipelines, wells, and brush encroachment (Factor A); (3) the threat of
loss of emerging seedlings from herbicides used to control brush across
the entire range of the species (Factor A); and (4) the impact of
extreme or successive years of drought (Factor A). These factors place
this species at high risk of extinction. Limited distribution and small
population size of these remnant populations (Factor E) significantly
heightens the danger of extinction due to threats from Factor A. The
threats are ongoing and occur throughout the range of the species.
Therefore, we find that a proposed determination as an endangered
species, rather than a threatened species, is appropriate.
The Act defines an endangered species as ``any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' A major part of the analysis of ``significant portion of the
range'' requires considering whether the threats to the species are
geographically concentrated in any way. If the threats are essentially
uniform throughout the species' range, then no portion is likely to
warrant further consideration. Based on the threats to Texas golden
gladecress throughout its entire known range (northern San Augustine
County, into the northwest quarter of Sabine County, in a roughly 3-mi
(5-km) wide band paralleling SH 21), we find that the species is
currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, based on
the severity and scope of the threats described above. The species is
proposed as an endangered species, rather than a threatened species,
because the threats are occurring now or will in the near term, and
their potential impacts to the species would be severe given the
limited known distribution of the species, the small population sizes
at all three sites, and the tiny area occupied by these small
populations, putting this species at risk of extinction at the present
time. Since these threats extend throughout its entire range, it is
unnecessary to determine if it is in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the
Texas golden gladecress as an endangered species throughout its range
in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Neches River Rose-mallow
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The principal threats affecting the habitat of the rose-mallow
include habitat loss and modification through the encroachment of
nonnative and native plant species, hydrological changes, and
construction and development projects. These threats may be intensified
by the restriction of the species' known range to the Neches River
basin and the Mud and Tantabogue Creeks of five counties within East
Texas. Other stressors, including silviculture, herbicide use,
trampling, natural gas activities, and climate change effects were
reviewed for their impacts to the rose-mallow.
Nonnative Plants
Nonnative plant species are a constant threat to native flora
throughout the Gulf coast prairies of Texas and Louisiana (McCormick
2005, p. 23). We consider the potential threat from two nonnative
species, chinese tallow and coastal bermudagrass, that occur in rose-
mallow habitat (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Chinese tallow was
introduced to the United States in the 1700's from China (McCormick
2005, pp. 7, 8). This species reproduces quickly, reaches reproductive
maturity in as little as 3 years, and can remain reproductive for at
least 60 years (United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, p. 2),
producing an abundance of seed annually (Potts 1946, p. 375; Conway et
al. 2000, pp. 268-269). Chinese tallow tolerates a range of habitat
conditions including full sunlight and shade, flooding, and drought
(USGS 2000, p. 1). The rose-mallow occurs in perennially and
intermittently wet habitats. Butterfield et al. (2004, p. 338) found
that chinese tallow grew faster than native species, such as loblolly
pine, water tupelo (Nyssa aquatic), blackgum (N. sylvatica), and
sweetgum in both perennially and intermittently wet habitats. Chinese
tallow occurs at all rose-mallow sites (Miller 2011, pers. comm.) at
varying densities, limiting the growth and reproduction of the rose-
mallow through competition for light, space, and nutrients.
Burning, mechanical, and chemical (herbicide) means can be used to
control chinese tallow. However, prescribed fire has produced complex
and highly variable results in chinese tallow and may not be an
effective management tool (Grace 1998, entire; Grace 2011, pers.
comm.). The Davy Crockett NF is establishing a regular burn cycle of 3-
4 years for all compartments containing the rose-mallow to control
chinese tallow and to mimic the historical fire regimes of the Coastal
Plain (Landers et al. 1990, p. 136). The Davy Crockett NF Resource and
Land Management Plan (specific to the streamside Management Area 4)
allows for mechanical means and prescribed fire to maintain the native
plant community but prohibits the use of chemical agents (herbicides)
unless applied by hand or through nonaqueous form within 100 ft (30.5
m) of the rose-mallow (USDA 1996, p. 154). Current mowing activities
along ROWs may abate some growth of chinese tallow, but management
actions on these sites should also be evaluated. Chemical methods are
not being used to control chinese tallow.
Coastal bermudagrass is an introduced bermudagrass cultivar that
has been widely planted in the southern United States for livestock
forage. It is adapted to a wide range of soil types and climates and
tolerates both drought and periodic inundation (Burton and Hanna 1985,
p. 247). In dry climates, this cultivar will thrive along irrigation
ditches and streambeds, agricultural fields, and roadside areas (Burton
and Hanna 1985, p. 247). Due to its hybrid origin, coastal bermudagrass
produces very few viable seeds and is established
[[Page 55986]]
by planting sprigs (rhizomes and stolons) (Stichler and Bade 2012, p.
1). Once established, coastal bermudagrass tends to produce dense
monocultures where native species cannot persist. However, coastal
bermudagrass has only been seen on one extant site of the rose-mallow.
This is a secluded portion of the privately owned land of Boggy Slough,
where coastal bermudagrass appeared to be planted (Allen 2011a, pers.
comm.) and had not spread to any other sites on the property or the
adjacent SH 94 ROW population. Since coastal bermudagrass is not
present at most rose-mallow populations, and has a low rate of spread,
we believe it is not a significant threat. However, coastal
bermudagrass could become a threat if introduced into rose-mallow
habitats.
In summary, all populations of the rose-mallow are negatively
affected by chinese tallow, a nonnative tree species that competes with
the rose-mallow for available soil nutrients, space, and light. Coastal
bermudagrass is not a current threat to the rose-mallow.
Native Species
Sweetgum and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) are native,
deciduous trees of East Texas found at all rose-mallow sites (Miller
2011, pers. comm.). Sweetgum is found on a variety of soils but grows
best on moist, alluvial clay and sandy loams of river bottoms (Kormanik
2004, p. 790, in Burns and Honkala 1990). Green ash also tolerates a
range of soils and in Texas is abundant in clay or silty loams of
floodplains (Johnson 1980, in Gucker 2005, p. 15). Both species also
grow in full sun to partially shaded habitats. Therefore, both the
sweetgum and green ash are well adapted to the hydric alluvial soils
and open canopies that the rose-mallow needs. In the absence of other
competing species, sweetgum and green ash can attain large sizes (50-
100 ft (15-30 m)) (Dickerson 2002, p. 1) and can reduce the open canopy
needed by the rose-mallow (Kirkman 1995, pp. 12, 15). Although
naturally occurring wildfires or prescribed fire limit the abundance of
these tree species, prescribed fire is not a widely accepted method of
ROW maintenance. Four rose-mallow populations that were monitored in
2011 were overgrown with sweetgum and green ash (Miller 2011, pers.
comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 1-11, 20-28). Two of these sites were on ROWs,
and prescribed burning had not been used at the other two sites.
Consequently, about 27 percent of the rose-mallow's populations are
impacted by competition and shading from native sweetgum and green ash
trees. Therefore, native species that compete with rose-mallow for
light and nutrients are a moderate threat to the species, and may
become a significant threat if maintenance is not continued at occupied
sites.
Hydrological Changes
The rose-mallow can be found in both intermittent and perennial
wetlands along oxbows, sloughs, terraces, ponds, and other low-lying
areas in habitats with minimal standing water. Wetlands are ecological
communities with hydric (flooded or saturated) soils. Many aquatic
species, including the rose-mallow, are adapted to highly variable
rates of water flow, including seasonal high and low flows and
occasional floods and droughts. For example, the rose-mallow may
require high precipitation and flowing water or floods to disperse seed
(Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8; Reeves 2008, p. 3).
Channelization, drainage, dredging, ditching, stream diversion,
impoundments, ground water withdrawals, and levees have historically
caused wetland loss (North Carolina State University Water Quality
Group 2012, http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/wetlands/wetloss.html). Some degree of hydrological change is seen at all of the
rose-mallow sites. At Boggy Slough, shifts of river and creek beds have
left meandering scars and remnant oxbows. Several levees have been
built that have changed the natural landscape and flow patterns at this
site to make ponds available for duck hunting, thereby converting
seasonally inundated wetlands to permanently flooded wetlands (Miller
2011, pers. comm.). On TLC land, rose-mallow plants once lined the
perimeter of a flatwoods pond. After 2003, a stock pond was built there
(TXNDD 2012a, p. 18) in what was likely part of an overflow channel
from Tantabogue Creek. The constructed stock pond altered the natural
surface hydrology by retaining overflow from Tantabogue Creek,
preventing it from draining south to the rose-mallow site. During the
2011 survey conducted by the Service and TPWD, we observed only 539
rose-mallow stems, most of which were in relatively poor condition. The
hydrologic alteration of the site combined with drought conditions
reduced the height of rose-mallow stems, thus increasing their
vulnerability to browsing by cattle. During 2011, drought also led to
increased grazing pressure in rose-mallow habitats. Once normal
rainfall has resumed and preferred forage sources become available,
grazing pressure is expected to diminish.
All four of the Davy Crockett NF sites may also be affected by
hydrological changes. A pine-oak forest on adjacent private land
regulates the amount, timing, and possibly the rate of water flow
westward into compartment 55. Removal or alteration of the pine-oak
forest could change the hydrology of compartment 55, thereby also
changing the rose-mallow seed dispersal range; however, the likelihood
of these tree removal or habitat alteration activities are unknown but
likely minimal. All NF sites censused in 2011 were completely dry
except for compartment 20, where a small pond to the south drains into
the compartment (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). We found no records of
hydrologic alterations in compartments 20 and 11. In 2000, when the
rose-mallow was introduced into a wetland on compartment 16, a beaver
dam was present. When the dam broke in 2002, water infiltrated the site
and the original hydrology was altered (TXNDD 2012a, p. 44). Water
depth at the site was likely altered, but rose-mallow plants were still
observed as recently as 2011. Additional beaver activity, such as
selective cutting and damage to certain tree species, was evident only
at Boggy Slough. These activities along with dam building by beavers
were not evident and are not considered a threat to the rose-mallow.
Although beaver dams could impact the site's hydrology and vegetation,
beavers are not currently a threat nor are anticipated to become a
threat to the rose-mallow.
Some of the rose-mallow populations occur on private lands where
modification of a Federal jurisdictional wetland could require a Clean
Water Act permit. However, not all actions affecting wetlands require
Federal agency review. These privately owned sites may be affected by
wetland and hydrological changes through anthropogenic and natural
causes and could cause a loss of a few individuals or a population.
Therefore, hydrological changes are a threat to the rose-mallow and its
habitat.
Development and Construction Projects
In 1978, the Angelina and Neches River Authority (ANRA) proposed
the construction of a reservoir known as Lake Columbia (previously
known as Eastex), in Cherokee and Smith Counties, Texas (ANRA 2012,
http://www.anra.org/divisions/reservoirs/columbia/history.html), to
supply water for five surrounding counties (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), 2010, pp. 2-4, 3-43). The dam for this reservoir
would be constructed on Mud Creek and would impound approximately
195,500 acre-feet (ac-ft)
[[Page 55987]]
(241 million cubic meters, mcm) of water in a reservoir reaching 14 mi
(22.5 km) upstream (USACE 2010, p. 1-1). Up to 85,507 ac-ft (1105 mcm)
of water would be diverted from the downstream flow of Mud Creek (USACE
2010, p. 1-1). An extant rose-mallow population is found at the
intersection of Hwy 204 and Mud Creek but is not within the permitted
project area reviewed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement. A
Habitat Evaluation Procedures analysis of the permitted project area
did not document any rose-mallow plants (Walker 2011, pers. comm.). We
are also unaware of any rose-mallows inside the proposed project area.
The Hwy 204 ROW site is a perennial wetland where plants remain
inundated year round; therefore, a change in the water levels at this
site could make it unsuitable for rose-mallow or could restrict seed
dispersal downstream. Drought conditions could also exacerbate these
impacts, and the reduced downstream water flows could completely
extirpate the Hwy 204 site (USACE 2010, p. 4-154; Heger 2012, pers.
comm.).
Only the Hwy 204 rose-mallow population of Mud Creek will be
impacted from this project, constituting nine percent of the total
extant population. Consequently, we consider development and
construction projects to be a minor threat to the rose-mallow.
Upgrades and Construction for ROWs, Roads, Bridges, and Other
Structures
Three rose-mallow populations are located on or near SH ROWs in
Houston, Trinity, and Cherokee Counties. These ROW populations are
vulnerable to impacts from bridge and road expansion and upgrades,
including hydrologic changes, soil movement, and altered wetland or
riparian vegetation. For example, in 2005, a proposed bridge
replacement on SH 230 would have altered approximately 4.91 ac (2 ha)
of rose-mallow habitat south of the ROW and 0.07 ac (0.03 ha) north of
the ROW (Adams 2005, p. 1). To mitigate for these impacts, TxDOT
proposed to acquire an additional 5 ac (2.02 ha) of rose-mallow habitat
located north of the TLC property; unfortunately, the proposed
mitigation plans fell through (Adams 2011a, pers. comm.). Bridge
replacement is continuing along SH 94, but as of 2011 had not
progressed into rose-mallow habitats (Adams 2011c, pers. comm.).
Although the human population has increased in Houston, Trinity, and
Cherokee Counties in East Texas (U.S. Census Bureau 2012)), no large
road expansion projects are anticipated for the two additional ROW
sites (Adams 2011c, pers. comm.). Although road projects are mainly
restricted to ROW easements, they may potentially impact three
populations representing 27 percent of the total known population.
Therefore, SH ROW maintenance and bridge and other structural projects
will continue to be a threat to the species.
Silviculture
Pine plantations in East Texas are established mainly on uplands
that are managed to mimic old fields or grassy savannas (Fox et al.
2007, p. 340). Site preparation may include anchor chaining, chopping,
burning, root raking, shearing, and disking (Balmer and Little 1978, p.
60). One rose-mallow population on private property south of Hwy 230
was extirpated when the site was converted to a pine plantation
sometime after 2003 (Poole 2011b, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 61-67).
Three additional sites in or near rose-mallow populations have evidence
of clearing, including: adjacent land south of the Davy Crockett NF
compartment 55; an extirpated site located south of the extant Lovelady
site, Houston County; and the privately owned site at Champion, Trinity
County. Rose-mallow populations may also be potentially impacted by
herbicides applied to pine plantations that drift into the rose-mallow
habitat (see discussion below). Herbicide treatments are increasingly
popular because they remove unwanted plant growth without causing soil
erosion from the site; however, herbicide use increases incidents of
water pollution and aerial drift to nontarget sites (Balmer and Little
1978, p. 63). Herbicide damage was evident along the Hwy 230 ROW, south
of the extant rose-mallow site on TLC property, but whether this damage
was the result of herbicide use by the landowner at the pine plantation
is unknown. The perennial or intermittent wetlands that the rose-mallow
inhabits are usually not suitable habitats for pine plantations.
Therefore, we conclude that silviculture currently is not a threat to
the rose-mallow.
Herbicide Use
Several incidents have been documented of herbicide impacts to
rose-mallow plants on ROWs and on privately owned lands. A
subpopulation with approximately 50 plants, on private property in
Trinity County south of Hwy 230, was extirpated by herbicide use (USFWS
2010a, p. 7). Herbicide drift along the SH 230 ROW (Gordon 2009, pp. 3-
4) caused the rose-mallow population to decline from 14 plants in 1999
(Poole 2001, p. 2) to zero plants in 2002 (Miller 2011, pers. comm.).
The Land and Resource Management Plan of Davy Crockett NF restricts the
use of nonaquatic herbicides unless hand-applied (USDA 1996, p. 153);
there have been no documented herbicide impacts to rose-mallow in any
of its four compartments. The TxDOT uses herbicides to remove woody
vegetation from ROWs (Miller 2005, pers. comm., in USFWS 2006, p. 7;
Adams 2011c, pers. comm.), but mechanical clearing methods have largely
replaced the use of herbicides in these ROW areas. Although herbicides
can be an effective management tool for the control of some nonnative
species, dispersal downstream and unexpected rainfall could impact
individual plants or whole populations, depending on the nature of the
herbicide. Therefore, we conclude that herbicides are a threat that
could impact 7 of 11 (64 percent) total rose-mallow populations.
Trampling by Feral Hog and Cattle
Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) were first introduced to the mainland of
North America (Wood and Barrett 1979, pp. 237, 238) in Texas in 1542,
although large-scale introductions did not occur until the 1930's (Isle
and Hellgren 1995, p. 793). Feral hogs are omnivores that dig up the
soil in search of roots, tubers, and invertebrates. Feral hogs use
their snouts to turn over soil, creating mounds and depressions
(Arrington et al. 1999, p. 535). Hogs transition from foraging in oak
stands during winter months, moving in summer to swamp and marsh edges
to feed on grasses, sedges, tubers, and roots (Wood and Roark 1980, pp.
507-509). Feral hogs are able to travel long distances to feed, and
often uproot vast areas of habitat. Feral hogs reach sexual maturity at
6-8 months (Wood and Barrett 1979, p. 242) and have large litter sizes.
Hogs can inadvertently incur severe damage to other food resources and
habitat during their regular foraging activity. Feral hog damage has
historically been recorded at Mill Creek Gardens, but uprooting of
rose-mallow taproots was not observed (Creech 2011a, pers. comm.;
Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Feral hog tracks were observed on all four
NF sites; however, plants were not damaged by herbivory or trampling
(Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Feral hogs generally do not affect rose-
mallow populations because the habitat is permanently or temporarily
flooded, limiting their access. However, drought may enhance
accessibility to rose-mallow sites, thus increasing their
susceptibility to trampling. Growth of the feral hog populations could
also lead to increased soil disturbance and impacts to the native
vegetative community, which
[[Page 55988]]
could create prime conditions for nonnative species to invade. Feral
hog tracks have been limited to a few rose-mallow sites with minimal
damage to habitat. However, no direct impacts to rose-mallow plants
have been observed. Therefore, we determine that feral hogs are not a
stressor to the species.
It is estimated that livestock grazing has damaged 80 percent of
stream and riparian ecosystems in the southern United States (Belsky et
al. 1999, p. 419). The damage includes increased sedimentation,
decreased water quality, and trampling and overgrazed stream banks
where succulent (high water content) forage exists (Armour et al. 1994,
p. 10; Fleischner 1994, p. 631; Belsky et al. 1999, p. 419). Trampling
causes soil compaction and damage to both above- and below-ground
vegetative plant structures and increases soil erosion (Warren et al.
1986, p. 491). Livestock owned by a neighboring landowner were present
on TLC's property at Lovelady. TLC has attempted to exclude these
livestock, and has proposed constructing an exclusion fence around the
current location of the rose-mallow population; however, funding has
not been secured (Dietz 2011, pers. comm.). The rose-mallow at Lovelady
is concentrated along a low area leading into a stock pond (Miller
2011, pers. comm.). We have not observed damage to rose-mallow from
cattle trampling at Lovelady (Miller 2011, pers. comm.), and are not
aware of other rose-mallow sites being trampled by livestock. In
summary, cattle are present at only one rose-mallow site (9 percent of
the total known population), and the effects are small and may be
remedied through exclusion devices. Therefore, we conclude that
livestock grazing is not a threat to the rose-mallow.
Natural Gas Pipelines and Well Activity
The Haynesville/Bossier and Eagle Ford Shale formations in East
Texas are currently being developed for oil and natural gas production.
In Harrison County, Texas, there is a single record of rose-mallow at a
privately owned site that has not been seen since 1980 (Birnbaum 2011,
pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 12-13); we do not know if the site has
been affected by ongoing natural gas exploration in that county. The
RRC regulates the oil and natural gas industry in the state of Texas
and maintains a database with proposed activities. Several of the
counties with known populations of rose-mallow, including Houston,
Trinity, Nacogdoches, and Cherokee Counties, may be subject to
increased oil and natural gas exploration in the future (RRC 2012).
However, oil and gas exploration was not observed on or directly
adjacent to any of the rose-mallow populations that the Service
observed in 2011, and currently there are no proposals near extant
rose-mallow populations. Therefore, we determine that oil and natural
gas exploration activities are not currently a threat to the rose-
mallow.
Climate Change
We discuss the topic of climate change in greater detail in the
Factor A Threats Analysis for the Texas golden gladecress, which is
also found in East Texas. In summary, the consensus of climate models
predicts that the climate in East Texas will become warmer and will
experience both more frequent droughts and more extreme precipitation
events. Diggs et al. (2006, p. 80) states that climate extremes,
particularly drought and low temperatures, have greater influence than
average conditions do on excluding nonadapted species. Extreme
precipitation events (such as tropical storms) may adversely affect the
rose-mallow by altering flow regimes and by temporarily increasing the
depth of its aquatic habitat to a level it cannot survive. A warmer
climate with more precipitation extremes may also increase competition
from native and nonnative invasive plant species (USFWS 2010a, p. 8).
The timing of precipitation is also crucial for the rose-mallow, since
seed dispersal is dependent on flowing water.
In October 2011, all rose-mallow populations and habitats showed
evidence of damage from the previous 3 years of drought, including
changes in leaf morphology, increased herbivory by livestock, dead
plants at specific sites, and lower water levels in perennial wetlands.
The survival of rose-mallow populations during previous drought cycles
may have been aided by its greater abundance and by greater habitat
contiguity; habitat fragmentation and isolation impede the
recolonization of sites, following a catastrophic loss, from
neighboring seed sources. Plant populations may also recover from the
soil seed bank (viable seeds that remain dormant in the soil until
conditions become favorable). We do not have information on the
abundance or distribution of the rose-mallow seed bank or how long its
seeds may remain in a dormant yet viable condition.
Nevertheless, climate change models have less precision at the fine
geographic scale of the rose-mallow's range, and we lack specific
information on the species' ability to withstand extreme conditions. We
conclude that the effects of climate change may be a threat to the
rose-mallow in the future, but are not currently a threat to its
survival. However, drought conditions, which may worsen with changing
climates in the region, may have significant effects on the rose-mallow
populations, especially in combination with other threats discussed in
this section.
Other Conservation Efforts
Three populations of the rose-mallow exist along SH ROWs in
Houston, Trinity, and Cherokee Counties. TxDOT and TPWD currently
operate under a revised 1988 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that
governs management actions targeting conservation of listed species and
key habitats on SH ROWs that may potentially affect natural resources
within facilities owned or managed by TPWD. Since the rose-mallow is
not a listed species, the MOU relates to protection of rose-mallow
habitat if the proposed projects include the following: Contains 1.0 ac
(0.54 ha) of new ROW within floodplains or creek drainages; requires
channel modifications to streams, rivers, or water bodies; and requires
realignment of channels with mature woody vegetation; or projects that
may impact mature woody or native vegetation (Texas Administrative Code
1999, p. 4). Although a formal mechanism via the MOU has been
established to review projects and alleviate or eliminate threats to
Federal and State-listed species and key resources, there have not been
any projects that fit these standards that have been recently reviewed
under the MOU.
The five remaining populations, including a portion of the Hwy 94
site, are located on private lands. Historically, two Candidate
Conservation Agreements (CCAs) were formed between the Service and
Champion International (Champion) in 1998 and with Temple-Inland Forest
Products (Temple-Inland) in 2002 to conserve the rose-mallow on both
sites. CCA's are not legally binding and private landowners are not
restricted by guidelines outlined in the CCA. Champion's 5-year CCA,
included 40 ac (16.2 ha) of wetland and was located east of White Rock
Creek in Trinity County (Champion site in Table 4). Management
guidelines included: Maintain 100-ft (30-m) buffer around occupied and
dispersal habitat, free from timber harvesting, site preparation, and
reforestation activities; minimize hydrological alterations; inhibit
filling or pilling debris or material on populations; and apply
herbicides only
[[Page 55989]]
by hand and at times of little or no wind (USFWS 1998, p. 4). The
Champion property was sold to Temple-Inland in 2001 and in 2004, the
CCA expired (USFWS 2010a, p. 9). The Temple-Inland CCA covered an area
that has a 20-ac (8.1-ha) wetland with rose-mallow (Boggy slough site
in Table 4); the plants declined due to drought and alteration of an
onsite wetland. A smaller wetland with rose-mallow plants was drained
in order to regulate water levels of the larger wetland, which was to
be used by Temple-Inland for recreational hunting (USFWS 2002, p. 3;
USFWS 2010a, p. 9). The Temple-Inland CCA was valid 2002-2004. Contact
was made with the owners and the Service and TPWD visited the site in
October 2011 where plants appeared healthy, but nonnative and native
species encroachment into rose-mallow habitat was observed (Miller
2011, pers. comm.).
Lovelady was once owned by the Natural Area Preservation
Association and is now owned by TLC. Thirty acres (12 ha) of land were
purchased in 2004, located north of Hwy 230 (TLC 2011, http://www.texaslandconservancy.org). Purchase of this easement on private
land was specifically for the conservation of the rose-mallow; however
plants occur on private land, and they are not offered protection under
the Act unless a Federal action or funding is planned. However, TLC has
initiated a voluntary effort to construct a cattle-exclusion fence but
funds were taken prior to completion of the fence and the project was
not completed (Dietz 2011, pers. comm.). The introduced site at Mill
Creek Gardens was created in 1995 as a conservation easement by a
private donor (SFASU 1999, p.1) and was used as an experimental plot to
test fertilizer and mulching effects on the rose-mallow (Scott 1997,
pp. 6-7). This site is informally managed through mowing and burning
regimes prescribed by SFASU staff, but encroachment from native woody
species has been observed in the past (Creech 2011c, pers. comm.). Due
to a lack of accessibility, the two remaining private properties, the
Harrison County site and Camp Olympia have not been observed since 1980
and 1992, respectively (Warnock 1995, pp. 6, 8; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 58-
60).
Summary of Factor A
Based on our evaluation of the best available information, we
conclude that the present loss and modification of the rose-mallow's
habitat is a significant threat to the species' continued survival.
Threats include competition for light and nutrients by invasive plant
species, particularly chinese tallow, altered hydrology, and herbicide
drift; these threats may be exacerbated by future road and bridge
construction and maintenance work. We determine that livestock grazing
and feral hogs are not significant threats to the species. Although
silvicultural practices have caused some prior impacts to the species,
we do not anticipate that silviculture will continue to be a
significant threat. The exploration and development of oil and natural
gas wells, and predicted effects of climate change, are not currently
threats to the species, but do represent potential future stressors.
Additional conservation measures that had protected habitat and certain
actions on privately owned land have expired and no longer provide
protection to habitat of the rose-mallow. Therefore, we conclude that
the rose-mallow faces significant threats due to habitat loss,
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or
range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The showy flowers produced by the genus Hibiscus make it of high
horticultural interest (USFWS 2010a, p. 8) to Hibiscus enthusiasts
(Warnock 1995, p. 25; Poole et al. 2007, p. 265). Hybridization within
genus Hibiscus is repeatedly done in the nursery trade (Creech 2011a,
pers. comm.) to produce different colored flowers and modify other
traits that may be of commercial interest. Ornamental landscaping
companies sell rose-mallow plants online (Creech 2011a, pers. comm.).
Rose-mallow plants are easy to cultivate from cuttings, and having
plants available for sale in the nursery trade reduces collecting
pressures of the species from the wild (Creech 2011a, pers. comm.).
Plantings of rose-mallow into garden settings are standard and
placement within close proximity to wild populations has not been
recorded or observed.
Mercer Arboretum collected seed in 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, and
2003; these seeds, as well as living plants, are being maintained at
the Mercer Arboretum (Tiller 2011, pers. comm.). A portion of the seeds
collected were grown out in the Arboretum's Rare and Endangered
Gardens, where they have remained; seeds and plants have not been
transplanted back into the wild populations (Tiller 2011, pers. comm.).
Rose-mallow seed was also sent to the National Seed Storage Laboratory
in Fort Collins, Colorado, for long-term storage for conservation
purposes (Ellis 2011, pers. comm.).
The scientific and horticultural communities have collected rose-
mallow seeds and plants from wild populations; however, we have no
evidence that suggests that collection has depleted the seed bank or
has adversely affected populations. Plants are easily cultivated and
the species is well established as a nursery trade plant, thereby
reducing potential collection pressure. Based on the best available
information, we conclude that collection for recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes is not a threat to the rose-mallow and is not
likely to increase in the future.
C. Disease or Predation
Leaves and stems of plants in the Hibiscus family (Kroll 1991, p.
392; Everitt et al. 1999, pp. 177-193) are often consumed by white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Moreland 2005, p. 48). Cattle
also consume the stems but to a lesser degree than white-tailed deer
(Everitt et al. 1999, pp. 187-193). In 1993, evidence of herbivory was
present at four rose-mallow subpopulations at Lovelady (Warnock 1995,
p. 18) and in 2010, at compartment 20 (Allen and Duty 2010, p. 3). In
2011 at 5 of the 11 populations, above-ground portions of the rose-
mallow, mainly the tips, were grazed by white-tail deer, with the most
intense herbivory occurring at the Lovelady site. Plants consumed by
deer could decrease the reproductive success of the rose-mallow (Adler
et al. 2001, p. 1). Only at the compartment 20 on the Davy Crockett NF
was the evidence of browsing on the flowers observed (Allen and Duty
2010, p. 3); however, the species is able to produce secondary growth
(Strauss and Agrawal 1999, p. 179). Drought could exacerbate the
consumption of leaves and stems if preferred plants were not available,
but we conclude that ungulate (hoofed animal) herbivory is an
insignificant stressor to the rose-mallow.
Insect damage and predation has been observed on rose-mallow plants
in several populations; however, regrowth of foliage after herbivory
incidents may indicate that the rose-mallow is adapted to herbivory
(Strauss and Agrawal 1999, p. 179). Ninety percent of the first foliage
of rose-mallow leaves at Lovelady had been consumed by insects (USFWS
2010a, p. 8) with insect predation also seen on compartment 11 plants
in 2006 (Philipps 2009, p. 1). The scentless plant bug was observed on
plants in compartment 55 (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). This bug is known
to deposit egg masses on stems, leaves,
[[Page 55990]]
flower parts, buds, and seed pods of Hibiscus species (Wheeler 1977, p.
632), but to also consume Hibiscus seeds (Toth 2007, p. 6). Holes were
observed on several rose-mallow plants on all NF sites (Miller 2011,
pers. comm.) and were likely caused by this plant bug; however, these
bugs are not considered a significant pest because the damage to the
plants is minor (Toth 2007, p. 6). Larval forms of the Hibiscus sawfly
(Atomacera decepta) can consume rose-mallow seed pods in herbaria, but
have not been noted to affect wild populations (Wieland 1995, p. 1;
Creech 2011a, pers. comm.).
Changes in precipitation are not well understood in relationship to
insect herbivory (Bale et al. 2002, p. 2). Drought conditions may
exacerbate consumption of the vegetative and floral parts if other food
resources within the plant community become scarce. Temperature shifts
related to climate change may trigger corresponding insect population
shifts. Impacts from insect population shifts cannot be predicted;
however, if conditions favor the growth of insect populations, the
effects of insect herbivory on the rose-mallow could increase.
Summary of Factor C
Mammalian herbivory has affected the majority of sites; however,
grazing pressures are largely attributed to the lack of other available
food resources during periods of drought. Rose-mallow recovers quickly
from herbivory incidents and can produce secondary growth, minimizing
the overall negative effects of mammalian herbivory. This type of
herbivory is not considered to be a threat to the species. Insect
herbivory was also observed on several of the sites and was not range-
wide but, with anticipated climate change shifts in temperature and the
likelihood that insect populations will increase, we conclude that
insect predation is a minor stressor that will likely continue into the
future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any,
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *'' In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give
strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to
management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An
example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State
statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist,
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or
remove threats to the rose-mallow.
Davy Crockett NF lands are federally owned and managed by the USDA
Forest Service for the general public. Four populations of the rose-
mallow occur on the Davy Crockett NF. The NF classifies the rose-mallow
as a Regional Forester's Sensitive Species (Philipps 2012, pers. comm.)
and habitat is within Management Area Zone 4, according to the Revised
Land and Resource Management Plan (1996). This management zone includes
the bed, bank, and water resources of the rivers, perennial and
intermittent streams and wetlands, and their adjacent areas (USDA 1996,
p. 145). This area is managed to maintain the role and function of
aquatic, riparian, and wetland ecosystems while providing opportunities
for compatible multiple uses and will be managed to meet
recommendations stated in the Texas Wetland Plan (TPWD 1988) and Best
Management Practices established by the State (USDA 1996, p. 151).
Relative Management Area Zone 4 standards and guidelines include:
Maintenance or restoration of native plant communities; prohibition of
nonaquatic herbicide uses except hand applications or noxious weed
control following restriction on the herbicide label; and use of
prescribed fire when necessary to enhance riparian vegetation or
wildlife habitat (USDA 1996, pp. 153, 155). Herbicides are not
currently being used on the Davy Crockett NF and have been replaced by
prescribed fire, with the goal of routinely burning compartments every
3 years (Stiles 2011, pers. comm.). As discussed previously (see Factor
A; Nonnative Species), routine fires may play a role in reducing
chinese tallow. Actions that may affect rose-mallow habitat need to be
assessed using these standards and guidelines because these are
considered regulations that need to be followed (Phillips 2012, pers.
comm.). The encroachment of nonnative and native vegetation in rose-
mallow habitat is not addressed in the Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan; however, the application of prescribed fire in some
areas may benefit the rose-mallow.
The rose-mallow is considered by the Forest Service to be a
sensitive species on the Davy Crockett NF. A sensitive species is
defined as one not yet warranting listing as an endangered or
threatened species, but which is sufficiently rare that its future
survival is of concern (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670). The
management of sensitive species is described in FSM 2670, and the
management objectives are to develop and implement management practices
to ensure that species do not become an endangered or threatened
species because of Forest Service actions; maintain viable populations
of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species
in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National
Forest System lands; and develop and implement management objectives
for populations or habitat of sensitive species or both. In addition,
the Forest Service has to consider the effects of their actions on the
viability of sensitive species through the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.) process. As defined by
Forest Service policy, actions must not result in loss of species
viability or create significant trends toward the need for Federal
listing. This designation does not provide specific habitat or species
protection, but does provide some benefits to the species because of
increased awareness and evaluating projects that may affect the species
through the NEPA process. Significant threats to the rose-mallow are
not addressed with this designation.
Existing regulatory mechanisms do not provide protection for plants
on private lands. Rose-mallow populations on NF lands receive some
protection from habitat modification, and the application of the Forest
Service standards and guidelines are not mandatory. In addition, not
all threats are addressed, such as encroachment of nonnative and native
species into rose-mallow habitat. The designation of sensitive species
for the rose-mallow does not address the threats to the species.
Therefore, based on our review of available information, we conclude
[[Page 55991]]
that existing regulatory mechanisms provide some protection against
threats, but not all of the threats are addressed. Therefore, the
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Small Population Size
Small population size can result in a decrease in genetic diversity
due to genetic drift (the random change in genetic variation each
generation) and inbreeding (mating of related individuals) (Antonovics
1976, p. 238; Ellstram and Elam 1993, pp. 218-219). Genetic drift can
decrease genetic variation within a population by favoring certain
characteristics and, thereby, increasing differences between
populations (Ellstram and Elam 1993, pp. 218-219). Self-fertilization
and low dispersal rates can cause low genetic diversity due to
inbreeding (Antonovics 1976, p. 238; Barrett and Kohn 1991, p. 21).
This decreased genetic diversity diminishes a species' ability to adapt
to the selective pressures of a changing environment (Ellstrand 1992,
p. 77; Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 360).
No genetic studies have been conducted on the rose-mallow. There is
no evidence that rose-mallow populations are experiencing genetic drift
or inbreeding. We conclude that small population size is not a threat
to the rose-mallow.
Hybridization
The genus Hibiscus easily hybridizes in the nursery trade (Creech
2011a, pers. comm.). Hybridization under natural conditions has not
been verified, but several rose-mallow sites contain individuals that
may be products of crosses between the rose-mallow with H. laevis or H.
moscheutos. In some locations, H. laevis or H. moscheutos, or both,
grow in close proximity to the rose-mallow. These plants have leaves,
flowers, and floral parts resembling both parent species (USFWS 2010a,
p. 3; TXNDD 2012a, entire). So far, these are only observations and no
genetic studies have taken place to verify if hybridization is
occurring. We do not consider hybridization to be a threat to the rose-
mallow.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
available information regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the rose-mallow and have determined that the species warrants
listing as a threatened species throughout its range. Significant
factors that support this determination include the following:
The significant and ongoing threat from nonnative species
at all sites (Factor A);
The potential extirpation of an occupied rose-mallow site
from a reservoir project (Factor A);
Ongoing and potential changes to key hydrological features
of the species' habitat (Factor A);
The potential threat from future construction and ROW
projects (Factor A);
Ongoing threats from aerial herbicide drift incidents
(Factor A); and
Sustained drought that affects habitat quality and
reproductive output of the species (Factor A).
Existing threats may be exacerbated by the effects of ongoing and
future climate change, especially projected increases in temperature
and decreases in precipitation that may increase the frequency and
severity of droughts. The species receives some level of protection
from habitat modification on NF lands through the standards and
guidelines for Management Area Zone 4, which encompasses rose-mallow
sites. However, these guidelines do not address all the significant
threats to the species. Four of the 11 existing rose-mallow
populations, including the largest and most robust population, occur on
NF lands. Therefore, existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate.
Some threats (such as herbicide spraying and nonnative species
encroachment) are significant and occur throughout the range of the
species, but the threats do not affect all rose-mallow populations. For
instance, drift from herbicide spraying likely resulted in the
extirpation of the rose-mallow in the SH 230 ROW, and the other two
populations within SH ROWs may be affected by herbicide spraying in the
future; however, rose-mallow populations on NF lands are not threatened
by this activity. All populations are threatened by the invasion of
nonnatives, resulting in competition for light and nutrients, but
maintenance activities occur within different populations to minimize
this threat. To our knowledge, this species has not experienced a
reduction in its range, all of the known populations and sites are
still present on the landscape, and the natural populations have
maintained viable population numbers. In addition, there are four
introduced populations that remain viable, although the introduced
populations on NF lands have declined in recent years. Some threats are
likely to occur in the foreseeable future, but are not ongoing. The
potential effects from the construction of the Lake Columbia reservoir
have not taken place, and there is uncertainty if the downstream
population of rose-mallow would be affected by changes in hydrology.
Therefore, we conclude that the species does not meet the definition of
an endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range), but meets the definition of a
threatened species (likely to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
The Act defines threatened as ``any species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' A major part of the
analysis of ``significant portion of the range'' requires considering
whether the threats to the rose-mallow are geographically concentrated
in any way. If the threats are consistently uniform throughout the
species' range, then no portion is likely to warrant further
consideration.
Since threats extend throughout its entire range and are not
geographically concentrated, it is unnecessary to determine whether the
rose-mallow should be considered an endangered species within a
significant portion of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the
Neches River rose-mallow as a threatened species throughout its range
in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery
actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against
certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public
awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal
agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed,
in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop
[[Page 55992]]
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery
tasks. Recovery teams (comprising species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be
available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our
Corpus Christi Ecological Service Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Texas would be eligible
for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection and recovery of the gladecress and the rose-mallow.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the gladecress and rose-mallow are only proposed for
listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this
species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have
for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
For the gladecress, Federal agency actions that may require
consultation would include federally funded or permitted actions
occurring within the species' habitat, specifically within the zone of
Weches outcrops in Sabine and San Augustine Counties. Anticipated
actions include provision of Federal financial and technical assistance
through the United States Department of Agriculture; permits issued by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for installation of interstate
pipelines and associated infrastructure; provision of Federal Highway
Administration funds for road projects; provision of Department of
Housing and Urban Development funds for municipal and residential
construction and infrastructure projects in small towns along SH 21
within the range of gladecress; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-
issued section 404 and section 10 permits for wetland crossings that
are part of linear projects such as roads, transmission lines, or
pipelines; and Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded actions. Also
subject to consultation would be provision of Federal funds to State
and private entities through Federal programs such as the Service's
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, State Wildlife Grant Program,
and Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program.
For the rose-mallow, Federal agency actions that may require
consultation would include federally funded or permitted actions
occurring within the species habitat. These actions could include: (1)
New construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal
Highway Administration; (2) issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act and
section 10 permits by the USACE for Federally funded activities within
Federal jurisdictional wetlands; (3) management and any other landscape
altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Fish and
Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service; and (4) Federal Highway
Administration funds given to TxDOT for SH ROW maintenance.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and
threatened plants. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
codified at 50 CFR 17.61, apply to endangered plants. These
prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and
reduce the species to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction.
In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the Act prohibits the
malicious damage or destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and
the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of such
plants in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including
State criminal trespass law. It is also unlawful to violate any
regulation pertaining to plant species listed as threatened or
endangered (section 9(a)(2)(E) of the Act). Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. Chapter 88 of
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code lists plant species as State
threatened or endangered, with the same status as the Federal
designation, immediately upon completion of final Federal listing. The
State prohibits taking and or possession for commercial
[[Page 55993]]
sale of all or any part of an endangered, threatened, or protected
plant from public land (defined as State-owned and land belonging to
local governments). The TPWD requires commercial permits for the
commercial use of listed plants collected from private land. Scientific
permits are required for collection of endangered plants or plant parts
from public lands for scientific or education purposes.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.62 for endangered plants, and at 17.72 for threatened plants. With
regard to endangered plants, a permit must be issued for the following
purposes: For scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the gladecress or the rose-
mallow, including import or export across State lines and international
boundaries, except for properly documented antique specimens of these
taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
(2) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of gladecress or
rose-mallow plants from populations located on State-owned land
(highway ROW's) or on land owned by local governments.
(3) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of gladecress or
rose-mallow plants on private land in violation of any State
regulation, including criminal trespass.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Corpus
Christi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed
animals and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species
Permits, 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5837, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5837
(telephone 361-994-9005; facsimile 361-994-8262).
If the gladecress and the rose-mallow are listed under the Act, the
State of Texas's Endangered Species Act (Texas Administrative Code
Chapter 88:88.001-88.012) is automatically invoked, which would also
prohibit take of these species and encourage conservation by State
government agencies. Further, the State may enter into agreements with
Federal agencies to administer and manage any area required for the
conservation, management, enhancement, or protection of endangered
species. Funds for these activities could be made available under
section 6 of the Act (Cooperation with the States). Thus, the Federal
protection afforded to these species by listing them as endangered
species will be reinforced and supplemented by protection under State
law.
Critical Habitat
Background
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Texas golden
gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow in this section of the proposed
rule.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it
was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the
elements of physical or biological features that, when laid out in the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species'
life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can
[[Page 55994]]
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For
example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not
occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of
the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4 of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50
CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time the
species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other
activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) the designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is no evidence that the Texas golden gladecress or Neches
River rose-mallow are threatened by collection and no evidence to
support the conclusion that there would be increases in threats to both
species if critical habitat were designated. These species are not
targets of collection and the areas proposed for critical habitat
designation either have restricted public access or are already readily
open to the public. Several of the identified threats to both species
are associated with human access to the sites; however, we do not
anticipate the designation of critical habitat to increase the level of
these threats. Threats to gladecress associated with human access are
the loss and degradation of gladecress habitat due to quarry
excavations, natural gas-related construction, land conversion to pine
plantations, and exposure to agricultural herbicides. These activities
take place primarily on private lands, and the designation of critical
habitat will not likely influence whether these activities continue.
For the rose-mallow, 10 of the 12 sites are accessible with landowner
permission having been granted to the quarry companies. Road and SH ROW
maintenance and construction projects, exposure of plants to herbicide,
nonnative species and native woody vegetation encroachment, and the
alteration of the sites' hydrology have been ongoing throughout the
range of the species. These threats, or any other identified threat,
are not expected to increase as a result of critical habitat
designation.
In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat
would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a
critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The
potential benefits of critical habitat to the Texas golden gladecress
and Neches River rose-mallow include: (1) Triggering consultation under
section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a
Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur, because, for example,
Federal agencies were not aware of the potential impacts of an action
on the species; (2) focusing conservation activities on the species and
its habitat; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county
governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing
inadvertent harm to the species. Therefore, because we have determined
that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the
degree of threat to Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-
mallow and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Texas golden
gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow.
Critical Habitat Determinability
As alluded to above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
[[Page 55995]]
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of these species and habitat characteristics where these species
are located. This and other information represent the best scientific
data available, and the available information is sufficient for us to
identify areas to propose as critical habitat. Therefore, we conclude
that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for the Texas
golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow.
Physical or Biological Features for Texas Golden Gladecress
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for
Texas golden gladecress from studies of the species' habitat, ecology,
and life history as described below. We have determined that the
following physical or biological features are essential for Texas
golden gladecress:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The Weches Glades form a small patch system of habitats, endemic to
the outcrops of marine sediment and glauconitic clays that occur
primarily in Nacogdoches, San Augustine, and Sabine Counties (Nature
Serve 2009, p. 6). The average width of the Weches outcrop region
varies from 2-5 mi (3.2-8 km) (Sellards et al. 1932 in Diggs et al.
2006, p. 56) and encompasses the route of SH 21. All known Texas golden
gladecress populations occur, or formerly occurred, within 1 mi (1.6
km) of SH 21. Populations in the closest proximity to each other were
part of the Caney Creek Glade Complex that contained five of the eight
known sites. This entire complex was located within an area that did
not exceed 1 mi (1.6 km) from the most northern to most southern plant
occurrences, and extended less than 0.32 miles (0.53 km) from east to
west. The Chapel Hill and Geneva sites were outliers to the Caney Creek
Complex, located 4.5 mi (7.24 km) and 11.4 mi (18.3 km), respectively,
to the southeast. Multiple glades in close proximity to one another, as
exemplified by the Caney Creek Glade Complex, may have facilitated
cross fertilization between populations, enhancing genetic diversity,
and perhaps providing space for population expansion. Potential exists
for other areas within the range of the gladecress to support glade
complexes. Singhurst (2011, pers. comm.), using aerial photography and
maps of geology and soils, has identified clusters of potential glade
sites in additional areas within the Weches Formation within 1 mi (1.6
km) to the north and south of SH 21 as it traverses San Augustine
County, as well as into Sabine County. We are also aware that areas
adjacent to the Chapel Hill and Geneva sites have a high likelihood of
suitable habitat.
Due to loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat, optimal
glade size or density of glade complexes needed to support long-term
survival of Texas golden gladecress is not well understood, but
monitoring of the extant sites between 1999-2009 showed that the
gladecress could persist on small, disjunct sites where it is able to
grow and reproduce, at least in the short term. Based on the best
available information, a better model of a healthy population and
habitat site may be found by looking at the historic CCG Site 6, which
supported the largest population ever documented. This former site was
contained within an area of approximately 10 ac (4 ha) and supported
thousands of plants until the mid-1990's, when it was destroyed by
mining excavation. This glade complex consisted of long, sheeted
openings that presented a patchwork appearance of soil, rock, and
glades (Singhurst 2012d, pers. comm.). This site likely represented
ideal glade conditions for this species because it supported a healthy
and robust population.
The best available information regarding gene flow between
gladecress populations is that seed dispersal may be limited. Seeds
appear to fall to the ground near the parent plant and probably stay in
place unless water movement, such as flooding, carries them to other
suitable habitats. The Weches outcrops occur in a scattered fashion
across the landscape with habitat that is unsuitable for gladecress
lying between outcrops.
Pollinators specific to Texas golden gladecress have not been
identified. Native bees in the Families Andrenidae and Halictidae
(sweat bees), including the species Halictus ligatus (sweat bee), were
observed carrying pollen from Leavenworthia crassa (fleshyfruit
gladecress) and L. stylosa (cedar gladecress) in northern Alabama
(Llyod 1965, pp. 106-115). Although representatives of these bee
families are found across eastern Texas (Warriner 2012b, pers. comm.),
there is no documentation of them visiting Texas golden gladecress.
Busch and Urban (2011, p. 18) indicated the efficacy of these
pollinators has not been studied in Leavenworthia. Texas golden
gladecress is believed to be self-compatible and may not rely solely on
pollinators for fertilization (see Biology section). Based on this
information, close proximity of glade outcrops to one another may help
to facilitate cross pollination and seed dispersal.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify glauconite
exposures (outcrops) of the Weches Geologic Formation, found within
Weches glades and prairies, as an essential physical feature for the
species' continued existence. Although these individual exposures can
be small in size and scattered throughout a glade or glades, ideally
the glades will occur in multiples (a complex).
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
The geology and soils of Texas golden gladecress sites are unique
in East Texas, and the species shows a tight association with these
features (Singhurst, 2011, pers. comm.). The Weches Formation is
characterized by the mineral glauconite and contains glauconitic clays,
calcareous marls, rich marine fossil deposits, and mudstone (George and
Nixon 1990, pp. 117-118). In some areas, leaching of the soluble
ingredients in the glauconite has concentrated iron in ironstone (iron-
bearing limonite). Surface exposures of the Weches Formation are
usually on slopes (due to erosion) and typically are small; 16.4-65.6
ft (5-20 m) in width, and generally not exceeding 328 ft (100 m) in
length (George and Nixon 1990 p. 118). The Weches Formation affects the
local topography and vegetation, with cap hills and escarpments where
the
[[Page 55996]]
erosion-resistant ironstone layers occur, and more rolling topography
where ironstone is not present (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 56).
The Weches outcrops create limited areas of relatively thin
alkaline soils in a region of mostly sandy soils (USFWS 1992, pp. 3-4)
resulting in natural glade communities on the shallow, seasonally
saturated, but frequently dry soils (Bezanson 2000 in Diggs et al.
2006, p. 56). Soils associated with Weches glades are shallow, rocky,
and basic in pH (alkaline), inhibiting the presence of woody species
(Nature Serve, 2009, p. 6). Soils underlying known Texas golden
gladecress sites appear to be inclusions in the Nacogdoches, Trawick,
or Bub soils series (USDA 2009, entire). George (1987, p. 18) found
that the soil profile of three Weches outcrops had a surface layer of
sandy loam or sandy clay loam with impermeable glauconite clay at a
depth of about 19.7 inches (50 cm). Measurements of soil pH ranged from
7.6 to 8.1 (George 1987, p. 18). Weches soils contain exceptionally
high levels of calcium (2,500-6,000 parts per million (ppm)) from
fossilized shells, as well as high levels of potassium (170-250 ppm)
and magnesium (250-400 ppm). The basic pH at these sites results from
dissolution of the calcareous component of the rich marine fossil fauna
of the Weches Formation (George 1987, p. 47). These conditions produce
a harsh, variable environment that becomes saturated and seepy in cool
moist months and during rainy seasons, but that dries out, becoming
parched and hard, during hot summer months (USFWS 1992, pp. 3-4).
Leavenworthia species are dormant by early summer, helping them to
survive the dry period as seed; this dormancy is likely one of the
major evolutionary adaptations in this genus enabling its species to
endure the extreme droughty conditions of late summer (Quarterman 1950,
p. 5).
Texas golden gladecress is dependent on late fall-winter
precipitation levels that keep the glade sediments saturated and leave
pooled water on the small outcrop ledges. Based on observations of
gladecress population sites over a 10-year period within the Weches
outcrops and glade complexes, Texas golden gladecress appeared to be
highly restricted to wet microhabitats and ``even within suitable
sites, the species seems limited to only seasonal seep runs and vernal
pools within the site'' (Singhurst 2011a, pers. comm.). The species'
apparent requirement for direct contact with seeps and shallow puddles
on exposed ledges of outcrop implies reliance on precipitation that
falls directly onto the ledges and possibly on down-slope movement of
water percolating through the sediment atop the clay layer. George
(1988, pp. 2-4) observed that the Weches outcrops were waterlogged in
the spring due to the clay stratum, with water percolating until it hit
the clay, then moving laterally and exiting on the hillsides where the
outcrops are. At the Chapel Hill site, gladecress was found on and
around a few spots where the glauconite was exposed rather than in the
dense cover of the herbaceous matrix (Carr 2005, p. 2). The glauconite
exposures at this site were wet from seeps or due to percolating water
moving laterally on top of the bedrock.
All known Texas golden gladecress populations have been found on
open, sunny exposures on Weches outcrops. Baskin and Baskin (1988, p.
837) indicated that a high light requirement was common among the
endemic plants of rock outcrop plant communities in the unglaciated
eastern United States. This obligate need for high light has been
supported by field observations showing that these eastern outcrop
endemics, such as Texas golden gladecress: Grow on well-lighted portion
of the outcrops but not in adjacent shaded forests; photosynthesize
best in full sun, with a reduction in the presence of heavy shading;
and compete poorly with plants that shade them (Baskin and Baskin 1988,
p. 837).
Texas golden gladecress apparently persists on its specialized
habitat, at least in part, due to a lack of competition from taller or
more vigorous plants. Rollins (1963, p. 17) found that, while
Leavenworthia alabamica and L. crassa grew normally and produced seed
in a weeded portion of an experimental plot, plants from both species
died in the unweeded portion of the plot where Poa annua (annual
bluegrass) was allowed unrestricted growth. Lloyd (1965, pp. 86-87)
observed that plants of these two species competed poorly with the
invading weed flora in abandoned agricultural fields.
The Weches outcrops and surrounding glade sites show large seasonal
variation in species dominance as a result of the shift from saturated
soils in winter-spring to hard, dry soil in summer (George and Nixon
1990, pp. 120-124). Singhurst (2012, pers. comm.) described the Chapel
Hill site as having bare spots on the tops of the glade with seasonal
pools of water (similar to vernal pools). At this site the gladecress
would bloom, seed, dry out, and die back to be replaced in summer by
drier, more succulent plants. Quarterman (1986 in George and Nixon
1990, p. 124) found that the thinner soils in Tennessee glades were
dominated in spring by Leavenworthia spp., Minuartia patula (Pitcher's
sandwort), and Sedum pulchellum (stonecrop), and that Sporobolus
vaginiflorus (poverty dropseed) would be the dominant grass on these
soils in summer. Singhurst observed similar species composition shifts
at Texas golden gladecress sites (Singhurst 2012e, pers. comm.). Even
with this seasonal shift, there are a number of characteristic
herbaceous species that occur in association with gladecress (Table 6)
(Bridges 1988, p. II-35; TNC 2003, p. 4; Carr 2006, p. 4). Carr (2006,
p. 2) found that gladecress at the Chapel Hill site shared the rocky
outcrop ledges with a sparse covering of Eleocharis sp. (spike sedge),
Calamintha arkansana (Ozark savory), and an unidentified moss. He
described the 40-50 gladecress plants as ``growing on or among clumps
of moss on these soggy, unshaded glauconite exposures.''
Table 6--Characteristic Flora of Weches Outcrops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific name Common name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Characteristic Herbs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedum pulchellum*............................... stonecrop.
Clinopodium arkansanum*......................... Ozark savory.
Minuartia patula*............................... Pitcher's sandwort.
Minuartia drummondii*........................... Drummond sandwort.
Valerianella radiata*........................... beaked cornsalad.
Isoetes butleri................................. Butler's quillwort.
Allium drummondii*.............................. Drummond wild-garlic.
Calamintha arkansana............................ low calamint.
[[Page 55997]]
Portulaca oleracea*............................. common purslane.
Phemeranthus parviflorus*....................... sunbright.
Eleocharis occulata*............................ limestone spikerush.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Other Potential Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erigeron sp..................................... fleabane.
Physaria pallida................................ white bladderpod.
Desmanthus illinoensis.......................... Illinois bundleflower.
Euphorbia dentate............................... toothed spurge.
Croton monanthogynus............................ doveweed.
Dalea purpurea.................................. prairie clover.
Houstonia spp................................... Bluetts.
Nassella leucotricha............................ Texas wintergrass.
Boutelous curtipendula.......................... sideoats grama.
Eleocharis compressa............................ flat-stemmed spikerush.
Sporobolus vaginiflorus*........................ poverty dropseed.
Thelesperma filifolium.......................... slender greenthread.
Arnoglossum plantagineum........................ groovestem Indian plantain.
Plantago virginica.............................. Virginia plantain.
Schizachyrium scoparium......................... little bluestem.
Polytaenia nuttallii............................ Nuttall's prairie parsley.
Onosmodium bejariense........................... softhair marbleseed.
Liatris mucronata............................... narrowleaf gayfeather.
Draba cuneifolia................................ wedgeleaf draba.
Paronychia virginica............................ Whitlow wort.
Camassia scilloides............................. wild hyacinth.
Zigadenus nuttallii............................. Nuttall's death cama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nostoc spp...................................... Cyanobacteria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequent Woody Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juniperus virginiana............................ eastern redcedar.
Pinus taeda..................................... loblolly pine.
Liquidambar styraciflua......................... sweetgum.
Cornus drummondii............................... roughleaf dogwood.
Sideroxylon lanuginosum......................... gum bumelia.
Sophora affinis................................. Texas sophora.
Quercus muhlengergii............................ Chinquapin oak.
Opuntia sp...................................... prickly pear cactus.
Rhus glabra..................................... smooth sumac.
Rhamnus lanceolata.............................. sanceleaf buckthorn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Strong association with gladecress sites.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify as essential
physical features for Texas golden gladecress the following: Open,
sunny exposures of Weches outcrops within Weches glade plant
communities that are characterized by the species listed in Table 6.
These exposures should have relatively thin rocky soils that are
classified within Nacogdoches, Trawick, or Bub soils mapping units.
There must be bare, exposed bedrock on top-level surfaces or rocky
ledges with very shallow depressions where rainwater can pool or
seepage can collect.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
In order to undergo successful reproduction, Texas golden
gladecress requires sufficient moisture in late fall to germinate, and
in winter-spring to support growth, flowering, and fruit production. At
sites where the gladecress depends on seeps to provide its water, there
must be sufficient sediment and/or slope at elevations above its
habitat site in order to catch rainfall and allow its slow percolation
down to the plant's location. For those gladecress plants growing in
what appear to be microdepressions that occur on fairly level spots in
more gently sloping ground, the water supply may be more due to direct
rainfall and dew collection. The species appears to be dependent on its
seedbank for its continued existence, so habitat should not be
subjected to activities that would remove the seedbank. Therefore,
based on the information above, we identify as essential physical
features needed for Texas golden gladecress' successful reproduction
outcrops that have intact hydrology and for which the surface features
and gladecress seedbed are undisturbed.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
Texas golden gladecress has a restricted geographic distribution.
Its historic range did not extend further than approximately 12 miles
(19 km) from the most southeastern to the most northwestern documented
locations and all occurrences were located within a 3.1-mile-wide band
(5 km-wide) around SH 21. The gladecress is also an endemic species,
highly restricted to a specific habitat type that occurs in a
[[Page 55998]]
scattered or patchy fashion across the landscape, with large areas of
unsuitable habitat interspersed. The extant populations exhibit a high
degree of isolation, being separated from each other by distances of
4.5 mi (7.2 km) and 7 mi (11.3 km), respectively, between the northern
(CCG Site 1), central (Chapel Hill), and southern (Geneva) populations.
All three populations are small in terms of areal extent and number of
individual plants. Given their geographic isolation and small size, all
of the sites are important for the conservation of the species. In
addition, we have determined that gladecress likely persists at the CCG
Site 7, even though access has been denied since 1988. Combined, these
sites represent the best habitat for the species throughout the
geographic range. The loss of any of the known populations would result
in a high risk of extinction for the remaining populations. Mapping of
potential glade sites by TPWD shows that there is suitable habitat near
the three extant populations, providing sites for population expansion,
thereby increasing its resiliency. These areas are representative of
habitat across the species range and provide the potential for
populations to spread, thereby enhancing recovery opportunities.
Therefore, we do not believe that unoccupied areas outside of the
geographic range are needed.
The long-term effects of climate change on the species are less
clear with regard to whether any additional areas outside of those
discussed above are needed for the species' future. See the Factor A
discussion of Climate Change for a summary of projected climate changes
in Texas and how these changes may affect the Texas golden gladecress.
The information currently available on the effects of global climate
change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently precise
estimates of the location and severity of the effects. Nor are we
currently aware of any climate change information specific to the
habitat of Texas golden gladecress that would indicate what areas may
become important to the species in the future. We do not believe the
species can easily adapt and colonize new habitats due to its habitat
specificity. Therefore, based on the best available information, we are
not identifying areas outside of those currently occupied as areas that
may be suitable due to the effects of climate change.
Primary Constituent Elements for Texas Golden Gladecress
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Texas golden gladecress in areas occupied at the time
of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We
consider primary constituent elements to be the specific elements of
physical or biological features that, when laid out in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' life-history
processes, are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to Texas golden gladecress are:
(1) Exposed outcrops of the Weches Formation within Weches
prairies. Within the outcrop sites, there must be bare, exposed bedrock
on top-level surfaces or rocky ledges with small depressions where
rainwater or seepage can collect. The prairie openings should support
Weches Glade herbaceous plant communities.
(2) Thin layers of rocky, alkaline soils, underlain by glauconite
clay (greenstone, ironstone, bluestone), that are found only on the
Weches Formation. Appropriate soils are in the series classifications
Nacogdoches clay loam, Trawick gravelly clay loam, or Bub clay loam,
ranging in slope 1-15 percent.
(3) The outcrop ledges should occur within the glade such that
Texas golden gladecress plants remain unshaded for a significant
portion of the day and trees should be far enough away from the
outcrop(s) that leaves do not accumulate within the gladecress habitat.
The habitat should be relatively clear of nonnative and native invasive
plants, especially woody species, or with only a minimal level of
invasion.
Special Management Considerations or Protection for Texas Golden
Gladecress
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
The features essential to the conservation of gladecress may
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the
following threats:
Actions that remove the soils and alter the surface
geology of the glades;
Building or paving over the glades;
Construction or excavation upslope that alters water
movement (sheet flow or seepage) downslope to gladecress sites;
Planting trees adjacent to the edges of an outcrop
resulting in shading of the glade and accumulations of leaf litter and
tree debris;
Encroachment by nonnative and native invading trees,
shrubs, and vines that shade the glade;
The use and timing of application of certain herbicides
that can harm gladecress seedlings; and
Access by cattle to gladecress sites where habitat and
plants may be trampled.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include
(but are not limited to):
Avoiding Weches glades when planning the location of
quarries, well pads, roads, other facilities or structures, or pipeline
routes, through glade complexes;
Avoiding above-ground construction and/or excavations in
locations that would interfere with natural water movement to
gladecress habitat sites;
Locating suitable habitat and determining the presence or
absence of the species and identifying areas with glade complexes and
protecting or restoring as many complexes as possible;
Extending outreach to all landowners, including private
and State, to raise awareness of the plant and its specialized habitat;
Providing technical or financial assistance to landowners
to help in the design and implementation of management actions that
protect the plant and its habitat;
Avoiding pine tree plantings near glades; and
Management, including brush removal, to maintain an intact
native glade vegetation community.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for Texas Golden Gladecress
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We reviewed
all available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the
species. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within
the geographic area occupied by the Texas golden gladecress. In
accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we also considered whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time
of listing--are necessary to ensure the conservation of
[[Page 55999]]
the species. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas
outside the geographic area currently occupied by the species because
we found that the currently occupied areas are sufficient for the
conservation of the species.
Areas Occupied by the Texas Golden Gladecress
As required by section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, for the purpose of
designating critical habitat for Texas golden gladecress, we defined
the geographic area currently occupied by the species. Generally, we
define occupied areas as those where recent surveys in 2012 confirmed
the species was present (Singhurst 2012f, pers. comm.). For one area,
occupancy by the species has not been confirmed since 1988 (TXNDD 2012,
entire); however, there have been no recent surveys due to lack of
access to the properties. For the purposes of designation of critical
habitat, we are considering this area to be currently occupied because
the species was known from this area in the past and the habitat
conditions that support the species appear intact (based on aerial
imagery), except for the growth of some woody vegetation in some areas.
In total, we found four areas currently occupied by the Texas golden
gladecress at the time it is listed.
Areas Unoccupied at the Time of Listing
We considered whether there were any specific areas outside the
geographic area found to be occupied by the Texas golden gladecress
that are essential for the conservation of the species as required by
section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act. First, we evaluated whether there was
sufficient area for the conservation of the species within the occupied
areas determined above.
To guide what would be considered needed for the conservation of
the species, we relied upon recommendations in a conservation plan for
the San Augustine Glades developed by TNC (TNC 2003, p. 8). This served
as a basis for the number of populations considered necessary for the
conservation of Texas golden gladecress. This plan came from TNC's
structured conservation planning process that relied on a science team
with expertise in the habitats and flora of East Texas. The plan was
developed with input from representative experts from academia,
botanical institutions, and Federal and State agencies. We consider
this plan the best available scientific information to determine what
is essential for the conservation of the Texas golden gladecress.
This conservation plan concluded that at least eight viable
populations of Texas golden gladecress, containing an average of 500
individuals each, was the target conservation goal for the species (TNC
2003, p. 8). We currently know of four confirmed populations of the
species within the areas occupied by the species (see Mapping Texas
Golden Gladecress Critical Habitat section below for how we mapped the
occupied areas). We used information provided by a TPWD botanist to
evaluate whether the four proposed areas might be sufficient to support
eight viable populations of the species (Singhurst 2012a, pers. comm.;
Singhurst 2012b, pers. comm.). The maps provided by this species expert
identified potential glades within these areas by using: Soil map
units; a time series of aerial photographs that depicted changes in
land cover; and personal experience and expertise with the species, the
habitat, and this area of East Texas (Singhurst 2012b, pers. comm.).
These sites occur in discrete areas across the entire historic range of
the species and include sites that represent the different landscape
settings and soil types that have been documented at gladecress
occurrences.
Based on this analysis and our site visits, we determined that the
proposed occupied areas contain suitable habitat (with special
management) to expand current populations and support additional
populations of Texas golden gladecress to meet the conservation goals
for the species. We judge there to be suitable sites within the
occupied areas that can be used for natural expansion of existing
populations or possible future augmentation if needed and advised
during future recovery planning and implementation. The habitat in the
four occupied areas is sufficient for attaining the goal of eight
viable populations throughout the geographic range of the species.
Therefore, proposing additional areas as critical habitat outside of
the currently occupied geographic areas would not be essential for the
conservation of the species, and we have not proposed any additional
areas.
Mapping Texas Golden Gladecress Critical Habitat
To determine the boundaries of proposed critical habitat units
around the species areas occupied by the species, we used a geographic
information system to overlay the appropriate soil maps over the
occupied areas. The Texas golden gladecress is restricted to the Weches
Formation, being found on only three soil map units: Nacogdoches clay
loam 1-5 percent slope (NeE); Trawick gravelly clay loam 5-15 percent
slope (TuD); and Bub clay loam 2-5 percent slope (BuB). We drew the
proposed boundaries around contiguous segments of these soil mapping
units from the online San Augustine and Sabine County's soils survey (
http://WebSoilSurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) encompassing
the occupied areas to form the boundary of the four critical units by
using the edge of the soil type layer.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, unpaved roads, and other structures because
such lands lack physical or biological features for Texas golden
gladecress. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in
the adjacent critical habitat.
Summary
In conclusion, we are proposing for designation as critical habitat
specific areas that we have determined will be occupied at the time of
listing and contain sufficient elements of the physical or biological
features to support life-history processes essential for the
conservation of the Texas golden gladecress that may require special
management. We proposed four areas that meet the criteria for critical
habitat. We determined that no additional areas are considered
essential for the conservation of the species because the proposed
occupied areas provide sufficient habitat to conserve the species.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on
[[Page 56000]]
which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064, on our Internet
sites http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, and at the field office responsible for
the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Texas Golden Gladecress
We are proposing four units as critical habitat for Texas golden
gladecress. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for Texas golden gladecress and all are considered to be
occupied at the time of listing. The four areas we propose as critical
habitat are: (1) Geneva; (2) Chapel Hill; (3) Southeast Caney Creek
Glades; and (4) Northwest Caney Creek Glades. The approximate area of
each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 7.
Table 7--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Texas Golden Gladecress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total size of
Critical habitat unit Private ac (ha) State ac (ha) all units ac
(ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Geneva................................................. 381 (154) 7(3) 388 (157)
2. Chapel Hill............................................ 147 (59) *3 (1) 150 (61)
3. Southeast Caney Creek Glades........................... 37 (15) 3 (1) 40 (16)
4. Northwest Caney Creek Glades........................... 767 (310) 8 (4) 775 (314)
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 1,332 (539) 21 (9) 1,353 (548)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* County owned
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and the reasons why
they meet the definition of critical habitat for Texas golden
gladecress, below.
Unit 1: Geneva
Unit 1 consists of 388 ac (157 ha) of private and State land
located in northwest Sabine County, Texas. The unit is located 1.5 mi
(2.3 km) south of Geneva, Texas, and 4.8 mi (7.7 km) north of Milam,
Texas, and is bisected by SH 21. This unit is occupied at the time of
listing and contains all of the features essential to the conservation
of the species. Approximately 2 percent (7.3 ac (3 ha)) of the land is
State-owned and is managed TxDOT ROW, and the Geneva Site gladecress
population occurs, in part, within this ROW. The remaining 98 percent
of the land is privately owned. The area directly adjacent to the ROW
gladecress population has been cleared of woody vegetation within the
recent past but is not fenced, so future land use is unknown. The
geology and soils (PCE1 and PCE2) occur throughout the unit and aerial
photography indicates that at least three other small, scattered open
glades (as identified by TPWD) occur within the critical habitat unit.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management considerations or protection to
address threats of woody plant invasion into open glades, possible
changes in land use, including planting of loblolly or long-leaf pine
to establish tree plantations, potential agricultural herbicide use to
control woody plants, and destruction of the features by excavation,
pipeline construction, or buildings.
Unit 2: Chapel Hill
Unit 2 consists of 150 ac (61 ha) of privately owned land, with one
county road ROW, in northwestern San Augustine County, Texas. This unit
is located 1.0 mi (1.6 km) south of SH 21, due west of the San
Augustine-Sabine County line, and lies alongside County Road (CR) 151.
This unit is linear in shape, running from southeast to northwest.
Aside from CR 151, all other land in Unit 2 is privately owned. Current
land cover appears to be approximately 70 percent woody cover; much of
the forest being rows of pine trees. This unit was occupied at the time
of listing by a population that grows on a privately owned, unfenced
tract of land that measures approximately 0.25 ac (0.1 ha) in size. The
geology and soils PCEs occur throughout the unit, and aerial
photography indicates that at least two other small, scattered, open
glades (as identified by TPWD) occur within the critical habitat unit.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management considerations or protection to
address threats of woody plant invasion into open glades throughout the
unit, conversion of pasture to pine plantations, pipeline construction,
and herbicide application.
Unit 3: Southeast Caney Creek Glades
Unit 3 consists of 39.9 ac (16.2 ha) just southeast of the City of
San Augustine, San Augustine County, Texas. Approximately 99 percent of
the land within this unit is privately owned, with the other 1 percent
being county ROW under the management of TxDOT. This unit is located
0.8 mi (1.2 km) south from SH 21 near San Augustine, Texas, along the
north side of FM 3483. This unit is located across Sunrise Road from a
glauconite quarry. Although this site has not been visited since the
late 1980's, we determined that the site still contains all the
physical or biological features; therefore, we consider the unit
occupied at the time of listing.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management considerations or protection to
address threats of woody plant invasion into the natural prairie and
glade habitat, and pipeline construction.
Unit 4: Northwest Caney Creek Glades
Unit 4 consists of 775.3 ac (313.7 ha) that extends in a diagonal
line from northeast to southwest, to the north and south of SH 21 just
east of the City of San Augustine, San Augustine County, Texas. The
unit is approximately 0.7 mi (1.1 km) wide. This unit is occupied at
the time of listing. The geology and soils PCEs occur throughout the
unit and aerial photography indicates that at least five other small,
scattered, open glades (as identified by TPWD) occur within the
critical habitat unit. Approximately 1 percent (7.8 ac) of the land is
State-owned and managed ROW by the TxDOT. The remaining 99 percent is
privately owned. Approximately 75-80 percent of the southern portion of
Unit 4 is forested. Historically, this unit was occupied by four of the
eight known occurrences of Texas golden gladecress;
[[Page 56001]]
however, three of the four have been lost to glauconite quarrying
activities.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management considerations or protection to
address threats of glauconite mining, woody plant invasion into the
natural prairie and glade habitat, and pipeline construction.
Physical or Biological Features for Neches River Rose-mallow
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for
the Neches River rose-mallow from studies of the species' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described below. We have determined that
the following physical or biological features are essential for the
Neches River rose-mallow:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Neches River rose-mallow is endemic to open habitats in wetlands of
the Pineywoods of East Texas (Gould 1975, p. 1; Correll and Johnston
1979, p. 1). This ecoregion contains hardwood (oaks, hickory, and
maple), pine species (loblolly, shortleaf, longleaf, and slash) (Gould
1975, p. 10), and native woody and herbaceous plant associates (Warnock
1995, pp. 14-15; Poole et al. 2007, pp. 264-265; see Table 3). Partial
to full sun is required to allow for blooming.
Habitat is characterized as sloughs, oxbows, terraces, and sand
bars, and habitat is found along depressional or low-lying areas of the
Neches River floodplains and Mud and Tantabogue Creek basins (Warnock
1995, p. 11). Sites include both intermittent and perennial wetlands
with plants located within 3.2 ft (1.0 m) of standing water, depending
on current drought and precipitation levels (Warnock 1995, p. 14).
Water levels at each site are variable, depending on proximity to
water, amount of rainfall, and floodwaters. Habitat elevations range
from 170 to 265 ft (51-80 m) above sea level (Warnock 1995, p. 13).
Based on the best available information, we identify intermittent
and perennial open waters in the Neches River basin and Mud and
Tantabogue Creeks, with areas of seasonal or permanent inundation with
native woody vegetation, as an essential physical feature for the
species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
The rose-mallow is typically found in open, flat areas of wetlands
with hydric, alluvial sands or sandy loams of the Inceptisol or Entisol
orders (Gould 1975, p. 10; Warnock 1995, pp. 11, 13; Diggs et al. 2006,
pp. 46, 79). Intermittent wetlands are inundated during the winter
months but become dry during the summer months (Warnock 1995, p. 11),
yet flowing water is required for seed dispersal downstream (Warnock
1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8; Reeves 2008, p. 3). Rivers of East Texas
tend to overflow onto banks and floodplains (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 78),
especially during the rainy season, thereby dispersing seed.
Precipitation in Texas increases from the west to the east, making East
Texas an area with comparatively higher annual precipitation, generally
ranging from 35 to 50 in (89-127 cm) (Gould 1975, p. 10). Therefore,
based on the information above, we identify hydric alluvial soils of
seasonally or permanently inundated wetlands to be a physical or
biological feature for the rose-mallow.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Flowing water is required for seed dispersal, and seeds can remain
buoyant for several hours (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8;
Reeves 2008, p. 3). Long-distance seed dispersal ranges and upstream
dispersal methods are unknown, but may be facilitated by avian species.
Therefore, we identify flowing water for seed dispersal as a physical
and biological feature for the rose-mallow.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
East Texas is subtropical with a wide range of extremes in weather
(Diggs et al. 2006, p. 65). The native vegetation of this region
evolved with, and is adapted to, recurrent temperature extremes (Diggs
et al. 2006, p. 67). The Pineywoods region of East Texas is vulnerable
to even small climatic shifts because it is ``balanced'' on the eastern
edge of a dramatic precipitation gradient. Temperature increases that
are projected in climate change scenarios will likely be associated
with increases in transpiration and more frequent summer droughts.
Decreased rainfall may result in an eastward shift in the forest
boundary and replacement of the Pineywoods forest with scrubland (Diggs
et al. 2006, p. 80). There may also be a northerly shift of southerly
species based on climate models that predict increasing temperatures
and, therefore, increasing evapotranspiration and decreasing regional
precipitation and soil moisture (Diggs et al. 2006 p. 73).
In October 2011, the Service observed that all known rose-mallow
sites were impacted by extreme drought conditions. Normal habitat
conditions include a cyclical pattern of wet winters and dry summers so
the rose-mallow may have some tolerance of drought; however, the
species may not be able to thrive in an environment with a higher
frequency and intensity of droughts. Soil compaction from hogs and
cattle, invasion from nonnative species, and herbivory may increase
during periods of drought. Predictions of climate change are variable,
and effects from climate change on this species are not fully
understood. The information currently available on the effects of
global climate change and increasing temperatures does not make
sufficiently precise estimates of the location and severity of the
effects specific to East Texas. Nor are we currently aware of any
climate change information specific to the habitat of the rose-mallow
that would indicate what areas may become important to this species in
the future. Therefore, we are not identifying any areas outside of
those currently occupied as areas that may be suitable for rose-mallow
due to the effects of climate change.
Primary Constituent Elements for Neches River Rose-mallow
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to the rose-mallow are intermittent or perennial
wetlands within the Neches River floodplains or Mud and Tantabogue
Creek basins that contain:
(a) Hydric alluvial soils and flowing water when found in
depressional sloughs, oxbows, terraces, side channels, or sand bars;
(b) Native woody or associated herbaceous vegetation that has an
open canopy providing partial to full sun exposure without nonnative
species.
With these proposed designations of critical habitat, we intend to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of both species, through the identification of the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of the primary constituent
elements sufficient to support the life-history processes of the
species.
Special Management Considerations or Protection for Neches River Rose-
mallow
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the
[[Page 56002]]
species at the time of listing contain features that are essential to
the conservation of the species and which may require special
management considerations or protection.
Threats to those features that define the primary constituent
elements for the rose-mallow include: (1) Alteration of naturalized
flow regimes through projects that require channelization; (2) water
diversions from streams and rivers and changes to the overall
hydrology; (3) encroachment from native woody riparian species and
nonnative species; (4) detrimental roadside management practices
including inappropriate frequency and timing of mowing during the
species' blooming period; (5) herbivory; and, (6) drought. Special
management considerations or protection are required within critical
habitat areas to address these threats. Management activities that
could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to:
Construction of cattle exclusion fencing to remedy
herbivory at Lovelady;
Restoration of the cattle stock pond back to a natural
flatwoods pond at Lovelady;
Coordination with TxDOT to establish and continue
effective management along ROWs for control of native woody species and
nonnatives (including, but not limited to mowing, brush-hogging, or
other hand-clearing techniques) and completion of these techniques only
during the appropriate life stages of the rose-mallow;
Coordination with the ANRA and consultation with the USACE
on the proposed construction of Lake Columbia Reservoir;
Consultation between the Service and the USACE for any
filling or draining of Federal jurisdictional wetlands; and
Clearing or burning on the Davy Crockett NF for control of
chinese tallow and to maintain an adequate level of openness in
habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for Neches River Rose-mallow
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We reviewed
all available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the
species. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within
thegeographic area occupied by the rose-mallow. In accordance with the
Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we also
considered whether designating additional areas--outside those
currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time of listing--
are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We are not
currently proposing to designate any areas outside the geographic area
currently occupied by the species because we found that the currently
occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of the species.
Areas Occupied by the Neches River Rose-mallow
For the purpose of designating critical habitat for the rose-
mallow, we defined the geographic area currently occupied by the
species as required by section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Generally, we
define occupied areas based on the most recent field surveys available
in 2011 and recent reports and survey information from the Davy
Crockett NF, TPWD, TxDOT, and observations by species experts (Miller
2011, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, entire). Currently occupied areas for
the Neches River rose-mallow are found in Trinity, Houston, Cherokee,
Nacogdoches, and Harrison Counties in East Texas.
In total, we found 11 areas currently occupied by the rose-mallow.
Two of these areas have not been verified since the 1980s and mid-
1990s. However, the sites have not been modified to our knowledge such
that they no longer have the physical or biological features essential
for the rose-mallow, so we consider them still occupied. Four of the
proposed critical habitat units currently occupied are introduction
sites, three of which are located on Davy Crockett NF compartments and
one in Mill Creek Gardens. The remaining five units support existing
populations of rose-mallow and the plants were observed at each of
these nine areas in 2011 (Creech 2011b, pers. comm.; Miller 2011, pers.
comm.; TXNDD 2012a, entire).
Areas Unoccupied by the Neches River Rose-mallow
We considered whether there were any specific areas outside the
geographic area found to be occupied by the rose-mallow that are
essential for the conservation of the species, as required by section
3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act. We first evaluated whether there was sufficient
area for the conservation of the species within the occupied areas
determined above.
To guide what would be considered needed for the conservation of
the species, we relied upon Pavlik's 1996 (pp. 127-155) Minimum Viable
Population (MVP) analysis tool, using the best known and available
scientific information on the species' life history and reproductive
characteristics and input from a species expert (Poole 2012a, pers.
comm.). Based on this analysis, we concluded that at least 10 viable
populations of the rose-mallow, containing an average of about 1,400
individuals each, was the conservation goal for the species.
We considered whether the 11 occupied areas contained sufficient
habitat to meet these conservation goals. Each area currently has one
population, so the occupied areas are sufficient for the ten
populations needed. However, the overall estimates of the number of
individuals in each population are low, with the largest population
estimated to contain 750 individuals at compartment 55 in October 2010
(Allen and Duty 2010, p. 4). All of the known populations currently
have much fewer individuals than the conservation goals. Considering
the size and amount of suitable habitat in the areas occupied by the
species (see Mapping Neches River Rose-mallow Critical Habitat section
below for how we mapped the occupied areas), we found that the 11 areas
contain suitable habitat (with special management) to support increased
population sizes to meet the conservation goals for the species.
Based on this analysis and our site visits, we determined that the
proposed occupied areas contain suitable habitat (with future special
management) to support larger populations of rose-mallow to meet the
conservation goals for the species. We judge there to be suitable sites
within the occupied areas that can be used for natural expansion of the
populations during future recovery planning and implementation. The
habitat in the 11 occupied areas is sufficient for attaining the goal
of 10 viable populations throughout the geographic range of the
species. Therefore, proposing additional areas as critical habitat
outside of the currently occupied geographic areas would not be
essential for the conservation of the species, and we have not proposed
any additional areas.
Mapping Neches River Rose-mallow Critical Habitat
Once we determined the occupied areas, we next delineated the
primary constituent elements. We estimated the area of habitat based on
several key features determined through our 2011 field surveys and in
past reports on habitat requirements. Since the rose-mallow prefers
depressional or palustrine areas, we used topographic maps to identify
changes in slope where the species was not anticipated to occur and
where seeds were not likely to be dispersed by flowing water (i.e., the
uplands). National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were used to determine
[[Page 56003]]
habitat types within palustrine systems. All areas, when mapped with
this layer in GIS, were associated with emergent, forested, or scrub-
shrub, with one area having an undetermined bottom (open water). All
proposed critical habitat units are seasonally, permanently, or
semipermanently flooded, which is consistent with our observations and
available data. Due to the high variation of alluvial and hydric soils
of rose-mallow habitat, soils were not mapped during this analysis but
are still a general wetland indicator.
To determine the boundaries of proposed critical habitat units
around the areas occupied by the species, we focused primarily on
available canopy openness. We used topographic and NWI maps for
confirmation of suitable habitat, then used aerial imagery available
through GoogleEarth to determine dense cover in the habitat. We drew
boundaries around the open areas that delineate the outer boundary of
our proposed critical habitat units. Critical habitat boundaries did
not expand into heavily forested areas because those areas are too
shady for the rose-mallow.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, ROWs, and other structures because such lands
lack physical or biological features for the rose-mallow. The scale of
the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands, as is the case with Unit 4, where the rose-mallow is
known to occur in habitat beneath the Hwy 204 overpass. Any such lands
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule
and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if
the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
Summary
In conclusion, we are proposing for designation of critical habitat
specific areas that we have determined will be occupied at the time of
listing and contain sufficient elements of the physical or biological
features essential in supporting life-history processes essential in
the conservation of the rose-mallow that may require special
management. We proposed 11 areas that meet the criteria for critical
habitat. We determined that no additional areas are considered
essential for the conservation of the species because the proposed
occupied areas provided sufficient habitat to conserve the species.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064, on our Internet
sites http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, and at the field office responsible for
the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Neches River Rose-mallow
The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat
for the rose mallow. The 11 areas we propose as critical habitat are:
(1) Hwy 94 ROW, Trinity County; (2) Harrison County; (3) Lovelady,
Houston County; (4) Hwy 204 ROW, Cherokee County; (5) Davy Crockett NF,
compartment 55, Houston County; (6) Davy Crockett NF, compartment 11,
Houston County; (7) Davy Crockett NF, compartment 20, Houston County;
(8) Davy Crockett NF, compartment 16, Houston County; (9) Champion,
Trinity County; (10) Mill Creek Gardens, Nacogdoches County; and (11)
Camp Olympia, Trinity County. The approximate area of each proposed
critical habitat unit is shown in Table 8.
Table 8--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Neches River Rose-mallow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private ac Federal ac Size of unit
Critical habitat unit (ha) State ac (ha) (ha) ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Highway 94 ROW............................... 2.3 (0.9) 1.1 (0.5) 0 3.4 (1.4)
2. Harrison County.............................. 20.8 (8.4) 0 0 20.8 (8.4)
3. Lovelady..................................... 6.3 (2.5) 0 0 6.3 (2.5)
4. Highway 204 ROW.............................. 0 8.7 (3.5) 0 8.7 (3.5)
5. Davy Crockett NF, compartment 55............. 0 0 3.8 (1.5) 3.8 (1.5)
6. Davy Crockett NF, compartment 11............. 0 0 7.3 (3.0) 7.3 (3.0)
7. Davy Crockett NF, compartment 20............. 0 0 3.4 (1.4) 3.4 (1.4)
8. Davy Crockett NF, compartment 16............. 0 0 32.8 (13.3) 32.8 (13.3)
9. Champion..................................... 2.9 (1.2) 0 0 2.9 (1.2)
10. Mill Creek Gardens.......................... 95.3 (38. 6) 0 0 95.3 (38. 6)
11. Camp Olympia................................ 0.2 (0.1) 0 0 0.2 (0.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Acreages for All Critical Habitat .............. .............. .............. 187.8 (76.0)
Units:.....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the rose-mallow, below.
Unit 1: Hwy 94 ROW
Unit 1 consists of 3.4 ac (1.4 ha) on both the Hwy 94 ROW and on
private land in Trinity County. The unit was occupied at the time of
listing and contains the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of the species. The unit parallels Hwy 94 for 0.1 mi
(0.2 km) to the north, beginning about 0.06 mi (0.09 km) from the now
abandoned rest stop. From the easternmost boundary, Unit 1 then extends
onto private lands (about 0.06 mi (0.09 km)) where it ends, abutting a
[[Page 56004]]
drainage ditch and levee. The unit parallels the ditch for about 0.8 mi
(1.3 km) until vegetation becomes thick and the canopy cover increases.
Hwy 94 ROW was first observed in 1955 with only herbarium specimens
collected, and in 1968, over 100 plants were censused (TXNDD 2012a, pp.
1-11). A total of 128 plants were counted in October 2011. Unit 1 is
optimal habitat for the rose-mallow and is so indicated by the
abundance of species observed this fall even during drought conditions.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 1
may require special management considerations or protection to address
the threats of: hydrologic changes on the private lands, management of
nonnative species and native woody vegetation, and appropriate timing
and frequency of mowing and maintenance along the ROW.
Unit 2: Harrison County
Unit 2 is between 0. 2-0.4 mi (0.3-0.6 km) north of Farm to Market
road 2625 in Harrison County. The unit was occupied at the time of
listing and contains the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of the species. A specimen of the rose-mallow was
first collected from the site in 1980 by Elray Nixon from SFASU and was
originally thought to have been H. laevis; the specimen was recently
reexamined and confirmed as the rose-mallow (TXNDD 2012a, p. 12).
Warnock (1995) provided only generic coordinates for the location of
this site, but, using aerial photography, we were able to determine the
location of this unit. Unit 2 is composed of 8.4 ha (20.8 ac) of
occupied habitat entirely on private land; the landowner of the site is
unknown. The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species include the large wetland or pond of hydric
alluvial soils and open canopy.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 2
may require special management considerations or protection to address
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland.
Unit 3: Lovelady
Unit 3 was habitat within Houston County, found northwest of FM
230, extending 0.3 mi (0.5 km) north and contains 6.3 ac (2.5 ha) of
private land. The unit was occupied at the time of listing and contains
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species. The majority of land in Unit 3 belongs to TLC, who
purchased the property in 2004 for the direct conservation of the rose-
mallow. This unit extends northward onto private lands where a known
population of the rose-mallow was found during a 2004 TxDOT survey.
Essential biological features within Unit 3 include a depressional
creek bed within Tantabogue Creek basin; inundation from overflow of
the creek from the northwest or from rain events that may allow ponding
in low-lying areas; open habitat with native woody vegetation; and
frequently inundated alluvial soils.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 3
may require special management considerations or protection to address
the following threats: Management of nonnative species and native woody
vegetation; maintenance of natural hydrology of habitat and adjacent
areas, including rebuilding the stock pond to mimic natural flow
regimes; construction of a cattle-exclusion fence to restrict grazing;
and long-term maintenance of Tantabogue Creek flows by obtaining a
conservation easement or agreement.
Unit 4: Hwy 204 ROW
Unit 4 in Cherokee County contains 8.7 ac (3.5 ha) of occupied
habitat along Hwy 204 ROW and within the Mud Creek basin. The unit was
occupied at the time of listing and contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Unit
4 extends about 0.3 mi (0.5 km) from east to west and about 0.01 mi
(0.02 km) from Hwy 204 on both the north and south sides, each to the
private fence. Unit 4 also includes a 0.1-mi (0.2-km) section of the
Mud Creek basin where rose-mallow could expand or where seeds could be
dispersed. This site was first observed in 1992 with a single plant.
Since that time, a maximum number of seven plants has been counted.
Since 2003, the rose-mallow has been observed underneath most
overpasses (TXNDD 2012a, pp. 20-28). Essential biological features of
Unit 4 include its location within the Mud Creek basin, open habitat
with full sun, and association with alluvial, hydric soils.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 4
may require special management considerations or protection to address
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland, and
appropriate timing and frequency of mowing and maintenance along the
ROW.
Unit 5: Davy Crockett NF, Compartment 55
Unit 5 is the only unit that contains a natural population of the
rose-mallow on Federal lands within the Davy Crockett NF. The unit was
occupied at the time of listing and contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Occupied habitat of Unit 5 includes 3.8 ac (1.5 ha). An open flatwood
or forested (Cowardin et al. 1979, p. 20) pond is surrounded by pine-
oak forest. Unit 5 is 0.09 mi (0.14 km) in diameter and includes a
palustrine flatwood pond and the surrounding open habitat. Essential
habitat features of Unit 5 include its location within the Neches River
basin, potential proximity to standing water contained within the
flatwood pond, surrounding native woody vegetation, and associated
alluvial soils.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in unit 6
may require special management considerations or protection to address
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland, and
controlled use of herbicides.
Unit 6: Davy Crockett NF, Compartment 11
Unit 6 includes 7.3 ac (3.0 ha) of occupied habitat on compartment
11 on Federal land of the NF within Houston County. The unit was
occupied at the time of listing and contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. SFASU
introduced 200 plants into a seasonally flooded and low-lying wetland.
Unit 6 is 0.2 mi (0.3 km) in diameter, and essential habitat features
include a partially open, depressional pond, surrounded by native
vegetation.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 6
may require special management considerations or protection to address
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland, and
controlled use of herbicides.
Unit 7: Davy Crockett NF, Compartment 20
Unit 7 includes 3.4 ac (1.4 ha) of Federal land on compartment 20
of the Davy Crockett NF, Houston County. The unit was occupied at the
time of listing and contains the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. SFASU introduced 350-400
plants in 2000, and the site was
[[Page 56005]]
occupied at the time of listing. Essential habitat features to the unit
include the hydric alluvial soils, native woody vegetation, natural
flows and hydrology of the draining pond, and an open canopy of the
perennial wetland where the rose-mallow is located.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 7
may require special management considerations or protection to address
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland,
maintenance and repair of habitat from hog damage, and controlled use
of herbicides.
Unit 8: Davy Crockett NF, Compartment 16
Unit 8 encompasses 32.8 ac (13.3 ha) of occupied Federal habitat on
NF lands. SFASU introduced 450 plants at this site in 2000, but only 43
stem clusters were observed in 2011. The unit was occupied at the time
of listing and contains the physical and biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. Essential habitat and biological
features include a partially open, depressional wetland within the
Neches River floodplain, native riparian plant associates, and alluvial
soils.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 8
may require special management considerations or protection to address
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland,
restriction of wetland conversion to beaver dams, and controlled use of
herbicides.
Unit 9: Champion
The Champion site, Trinity County, is located on private land
approximately 0.7 mi (1.1 km) south-southeast of the Houston County
line, about 0.8 mi (1.2 km) north of the confluence of White Rock Creek
and Cedar Creek (TXNDD 2012a, p. 55). The unit was occupied at the time
of listing and contains the physical and biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. Two small polygons are being
designated as occupied critical habitat, both encompassing 1.2 ha (2.9
ac). Essential habitat features on the unit include palustrine wetlands
with an open canopy.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 9
may require special management considerations or protection to address
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the entire site, and
habitat conversion to planted pine and other hardwoods.
Unit 10: Mill Creek Gardens
Unit 10 is an introduced site at Mill Creek Gardens, Nacogdoches
County. SFASU Mass Arboretum purchased the land and created the gardens
in 1995 as part of a conservation agreement. The unit was occupied at
the time of listing and contains the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. Plants grown from
cuttings by SFASU were introduced within research plots in an area that
overflows from an adjacent pond. Vegetation around the site is well
adapted to full and partial water inundation (TXNDD 2012a, p. 50). The
unit contains 95.3 ac (38. 6 ha) of occupied habitat.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit
10 may require special management considerations or protection to
address the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody
vegetation, maintaining natural hydrology of the entire site, and
maintaining the natural hydrology of the adjacent pond.
Unit 11: Camp Olympia
Unit 11 is located on private property in Trinity County. The unit
contains 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of palustrine wetland habitat north of Lake
Livingston. Warnock (1995, p. 6) suggested that the rose-mallow was
highly dependent on the water levels of Lake Livingston; therefore,
complete inundation of the site may cause extirpation of this
population. The unit was occupied at the time of listing and contains
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species.
The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit
11 may require special management considerations or protection to
address the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody
vegetation to maintain openness, and hydrological changes through
potential site alteration or construction projects.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are
[[Page 56006]]
identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as
alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for Texas golden gladecress and
Neches River rose-mallow. As discussed above, the role of critical
habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and provide for
the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation
that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action
that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be
affected by such designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the gladecress. These activities include, but are not
limited to:
Actions that would significantly reduce available habitat could
include, but are not limited to construction of interstate pipelines
and associated structures that are regulated by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-issued Clean Water
Act section 404 and River and Harbors Act section 10 permits for
wetland crossings for linear projects (pipelines, transmission lines,
and roads); road development (expansions and improvements) funded by
the Federal Highway Administration; and U.S. Department of Agriculture
funding and technical assistance for conversion of glades and
surroundings to pine plantations or for brush control programs
involving herbicide applications. These actions could directly
eliminate a site or alter the hydrology, open sunny aspect, and
substrate conditions, reducing suitability of a location to a point
that it no longer provides the environment necessary to sustain the
species. In the case of some types of herbicide applications, the
habitat may become unsuitable for germination and successful growth of
seedlings. Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
section 7 consultation for the rose-mallow. These activities include,
but are not limited to: actions that would significantly alter flow
regimes, such as impoundment, channelization, water restriction, water
withdrawal, and hydropower generation.
In addition, activities that may affect critical habitat include
actions that would significantly alter natural flora, such as
disturbance activities like digging, disking, blading or construction
work; introduction of nonnative species for erosion control along ROWs
or in other areas; and a lack of management of nonnative or native
woody species.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned
or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use,
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands within these proposed
critical habitat designations.
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Exclusions
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to
[[Page 56007]]
designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction
of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face,
as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight
to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors.
We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as
soon as it is completed. At that time, copies of the draft economic
analysis will be available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Corpus Christi Ecological
Services Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above). During the development of a final designation, we will
consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information,
and areas may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Texas
golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow are not owned or
managed by the Department of Defense. Therefore, we anticipate no
impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary does not
propose to exert his discretion to exclude any areas from the final
designation based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
Other Exclusions
We are not considering any exclusion at this time from the proposed
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on partnerships,
management, or protection afforded by cooperative management efforts.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are currently
no HCPs or other management plans for the gladecress or the rose-
mallow, and the proposed designations do not include any tribal lands
or trust resources.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers
to comment during this public comment period on our proposed listing
determination and designation of critical habitat for these species.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the RFA to
[[Page 56008]]
require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the
factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding.
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination.
We have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion
of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for
public comment.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. We do not expect the designation of this proposed
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and
no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. The majority of lands being proposed for
critical habitat designation are owned by private landowners, although
the Federal Government and the State of Texas own small portions. None
of these government entities fit the definition of ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as
warranted.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we will analyze the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-
mallow in a takings implications assessment. Critical habitat
designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource
agencies in Texas. The designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly
defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat necessary to
the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may
[[Page 56009]]
affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be
required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-
mallow within the designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).]
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
We determined that there are no tribal lands that are occupied by
the gladecress or the rose-mallow that contain the features essential
for conservation of either species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by
the gladecress or the rose-mallow that are essential for the
conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not proposing to
designate critical habitat for the gladecress or the rose-mallow on
tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2012-0064 and upon request from the Corpus Christi Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by adding entries for ``Hibiscus
dasycalyx''and ``Leavenworthia texana'' to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants in alphabetical order under ``Flowering Plants'', to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 56010]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
* * * * * * *
Hibiscus dasycalyx............... Neches River rose- U.S.A. (TX)....... Malvaceae................ T ........... 17.96(a) NA
mallow.
* * * * * * *
Leavenworthia texana............. Texas golden U.S.A. (TX)....... Brassicaceae............. E ........... 17.96(a) NA
gladecress.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.96(a) by adding an entry for ``Leavenworthia
texana (Texas golden gladecress)'' in alphabetical order under the
family Brassicaceae and an entry for ``Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River
rose-mallow)'' in alphabetical order under the family Malvaceae, to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Brassicaceae: Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden gladecress)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for San Augustine and
Sabine Counties, Texas, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Leavenworthia texana consist of the three primary constituent elements
identified for the species:
(i) Exposed outcrops of the Weches Formation within Weches
prairies. Within the outcrop sites, there must be bare, exposed bedrock
on top-level surfaces or rocky ledges with small depressions where
rainwater or seepage can collect. The prairie openings should support
Weches Glade herbaceous plant communities.
(ii) Thin layers of rocky, alkaline soils, underlain by glauconite
clay (greenstone, ironstone, bluestone), that are found only on the
Weches Formation. Appropriate soils are in the series classifications
Nacogdoches clay loam, Trawick gravelly clay loam, or Bub clay loam,
ranging in slope from 1-15 percent.
(iii) The outcrop ledges should occur within the glade such that
Texas golden gladecress plants remain unshaded for a significant
portion of the day, and trees should be far enough away from the
outcrop(s) that leaves do not accumulate within the gladecress habitat.
The habitat should be relatively clear of nonnative and native invasive
plants, especially woody species, or with only a minimal level of
invasion.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, well pads, metering stations,
other paved areas, or unpaved roads) and the land on which they are
located, existing within the legal boundaries on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map units. Soil Survey Geographic Dataset
(SSURGO) was used as a base map layer. SSURGO is an updated digital
version of the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) county
soil surveys. SSURGO uses recent digital orthophotos and fieldwork to
update the original printed surveys. Data layers defining map units
were created using the Texas golden gladecress' restriction to the
Weches Formation and its tight association with the three soil map
units: Nacogdoches clay loam 1-5 percent slope, Trawick gravelly clay
loam 5-15 percent slope, or Bub clay loam 2-5 percent slope. In San
Augustine and Sabine Counties, these soil types are restricted to the
Weches Formation. Locations of all known gladecress populations, as
well as potential glade sites, were overlaid on the three aforenamed
soil mapping units from the San Augustine and Sabine County's soils
survey. Potential glade sites were identified using soil map units and
a time series of aerial photographs that depicted changes in land
cover. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map
is based are available to the public at the Service's internet site, at
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064
and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may
obtain field office location information by contacting one of the
Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 56011]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.000
[[Page 56012]]
(6) Unit 1: Geneva Unit, Sabine County, Texas. Map of Unit 1
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.001
[[Page 56013]]
(7) Unit 2: Chapel Hill, San Augustine County. Map of Unit 2
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.002
(10) Unit 3: Southeast Caney Creek Glades, San Augustine County,
Texas. Map of Units 3 and 4 follows:
[[Page 56014]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(11) Unit 4: Northwest Caney Creek Glades, San Augustine County,
Texas. Map of Unit 4 is depicted in paragraph (10) of this entry.
* * * * *
Family Malvaceae: Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River rose-mallow)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cherokee, Harrison,
Houston, Nacogdoches, and Trinity Counties, Texas, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent element of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Hibiscus dasycalyx is intermittent or perennial wetlands within the
Neches River floodplains or Mud and Tantabogue Creek basins that
contain:
(i) Hydric alluvial soils and flowing water when found in
depressional sloughs, oxbows, terraces, side channels, or sand bars;
and
(ii) Native woody or associated herbaceous vegetation that has an
open canopy providing partial to full sun exposure without nonnative
species.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, ROWs, and other paved areas) and
the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries
on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
[[Page 56015]]
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on a base of Strategic Mapping Program (StratMap) digital
orthophoto quarter-quadrangles (DOQQs), with layers for boundaries and
roads. The Service's National Wetlands Inventory maps for the
appropriate USGS quads were also downloaded as layers. Critical habitat
units were mapped using Geographic Coordinate System (GCS), North
American, 1983. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map
is based are available to the public at the Service's internet site, at
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064
and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may
obtain field office location information by contacting one of the
Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.004
[[Page 56016]]
(6) Unit 1: Highway 94 ROW, Trinity County, Texas. Map of Unit 1
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.005
[[Page 56017]]
(7) Unit 2: Harrison site, Harrison County, Texas. Map of Unit 2
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.006
[[Page 56018]]
(8) Unit 3: Lovelady, Houston County, Texas. Map of Unit 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.007
[[Page 56019]]
(9) Unit 4: Highway 204 ROW, Cherokee County, Texas. Map of Unit 4
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.008
[[Page 56020]]
(10) Unit 5: Davy Crockett National Forest, compartment 55, Houston
County, Texas. Map of Unit 5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.009
[[Page 56021]]
(11) Unit 6: Davy Crockett NF, compartment 11, Houston County,
Texas. Map of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.010
[[Page 56022]]
(12) Unit 7: Davy Crockett NF, compartment 20, Houston County,
Texas. Map of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.011
[[Page 56023]]
(13) Unit 8: Davy Crockett NF, compartment 16, Houston County,
Texas. Map of Unit 8 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.012
[[Page 56024]]
(14) Unit 9: Champion site, Trinity County, Texas. Map of Unit 9
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.013
[[Page 56025]]
(15) Unit 10: Mill Creek Gardens, Nacogdoches County, Texas. Map of
Unit 10 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.014
[[Page 56026]]
(16) Unit 11: Camp Olympia, Trinity County, Texas. Map of Unit 11
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.015
* * * * *
Dated: August 28, 2012.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-22061 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C