Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Texas Golden Gladecress and Threatened Status for Neches River Rose-Mallow

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 Endangered Status for Texas Golden Gladecress and Threatened Status for Neches River Rose-Mallow

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine

Leavenworthia texana

(Texas golden gladecress) meets the definition of an endangered species and

Hibiscus dasycalyx

(Neches River rose-mallow) meets the definition of a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This final rule adds these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants and implements the Federal protections provided by the Act for these species.

DATES:

This rule is effective on October 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES:

This final rule and other supplementary information are available on the Internet at

http://www.regulations.gov

(Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064),

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm

, or

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ClearLakeTexas/

. These documents, as well as all supporting information are also available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at, or by requesting electronic copies from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office, 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5837, Corpus Christi, TX 78412-5837; by telephone at 361-994-9005; or by facsimile at 361-994-8262.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edith Erfling, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office (see

ADDRESSES

); by telephone 281-286-8282; or by facsimile 281-488-5882. 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.

On September 11, 2012 (77 FR 55968), we published a proposed rule to list

Leavenworthia texana

(Texas golden gladecress) as an endangered species and

Hibiscus dasycalyx

(Neches River rose-mallow) as a threatened species. In this rule, we are finalizing our proposed determinations for these species under the Act. The Act requires that a final rule be published in order to add any plant species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants and to provide that species protections under the Act. We are publishing a final rule on the designation of critical habitat for the Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow under the Act elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

. The critical habitat designation final rule and its supporting documents will publish under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0027, and can also be found at the locations listed in the

ADDRESSES

section of this rule.

The basis for our action.

Under the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened 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; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

We have determined that the Texas golden gladecress meets the definition of an endangered species due to the following threats:

• In some cases, a total loss of habitat and plants, and in others a degradation of the herbaceous glade plant communities supporting the Texas golden gladecress. Activities or factors that continue to negatively impact the habitat of the Texas golden gladecress include glauconite quarrying; natural gas and oil exploration, production, and distribution; 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; herbicide applications that have potential to kill emerging seedlings; and the installation of service improvements, including water and sewer lines, domestic gas lines, or electric lines.

• The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Texas golden gladecress or its habitats.

• Other natural or manmade factors, including low numbers of individual plants and few remaining populations.

• The above threats are likely exacerbated by climate change.

We have determined that the Neches River rose-mallow meets the definition of a threatened species due to the following threats:

• Habitat loss and degradation of open habitats on hydric alluvial soils along sloughs, oxbows, terraces, and wetlands of the Neches, Sabine, and Angelina River basins and Mud Creek and Tantabogue Creek basins that support the Neches River rose-mallow. The Neches River rose-mallow's habitat is being lost and degraded by encroachment of nonnative and native plant species, particularly trees; herbicide use; livestock and hog trampling; and alteration of the natural hydrology associated with 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.

• Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Neches River rose-mallow or its habitats.

• The above threats are likely exacerbated by climate change.

Peer review and public comment.

We sought comments from six independent specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from four knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical assumptions and analysis, and to determine whether or not we had used the best available information. The peer reviewers generally agreed with portions of our assessment, including the threats analysis, and most of our conclusions, although they pointed out areas where additional research would refine our understanding of the two species' habitat requirements and range. The peer reviewers pointed out additional information, clarifications, and suggestions for future research that would inform future surveys to refine the geographic range, and help with management and recovery efforts. Information we received from peer review is incorporated in this final revised designation. We also considered all comments and information we received from the public during the comment periods.

Previous Federal Actions

On September 11, 2012 (77 FR 55968), we published a proposed rule to list the Texas golden gladecress as endangered and the Neches River rose-mallow as threatened, both with critical habitat. On April 16, 2013 (78 FR 22506), we reopened public comment period on the

proposed rule. On May 1, 2013, we held a public hearing to accept oral and written comments on the proposals.

We are publishing a final rule on the designation of critical habitat under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

) for the Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

.

Background

Species Information

It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly relevant to the listing of the Texas golden gladecress as endangered, and the Neches River rose-mallow as threatened, in this final rule. Species information for the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow can also be found in the September 11, 2012 (77 FR 55968), proposed rule.

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.

E. J. Palmer (1915 and 1918), and D. S. and H. B. Correll (1961 to 1962) as cited by Mahler (1981, pp. 83) made later collections of the plant in the San Augustine area. George and Nixon (1990, pp. 117-127) studied and mapped populations in this area between 1979 and 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 (Nixon 1987, 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 to 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 uplands that are forested by pine dominated woodlands, interspersed with bottomland, mesic slope, and bald cypress-tupelo swamp forests. Water oak and willow oak are prominent in the large stream floodplains, while some ancient sloughs are fringed by planer tree and overcup oaks (Dolezel 2012, pers. comm.). Many of the rare plants of the Pineywoods region, including the Texas golden gladecress and the federally endangered

Lesquerella pallida

(=

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).

Based on all documented occurrence records, the Texas golden gladecress is endemic to glade habitats in northern San Augustine and northwest Sabine Counties, Texas, where it 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 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. Within the Weches Formation glades, gladecress habitat occurs on thin soils that overlie calcium-rich parent materials where the calcium is derived from a myriad of fossilized, calcium-dominated oyster shells and other marine life (Dolezel 2012, pers. comm., p. 1).

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 square miles (mi

2

) (1 square kilometer (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 Eocene-age deposits that lie mostly in an east-west band of ancient marine sediments. These sediments were deposited in a line roughly parallel to the Gulf of Mexico, running from Sabine to Frio Counties, Texas. The Weches Formation also extends over 100 miles to the north of Nacogdoches County into Smith, Wood, Upshur, Marion, and Cass Counties, Texas, and even into Miller County, Arkansas

(Godwin 2012, pers. comm., p. 2). 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 (United States Department of Agriculture 2009, entire).

Within the known range of the Texas golden gladecress, 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, pp. 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

Eleocharis 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 Texas golden gladecress's 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, 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) a thick growth of the invasive, nonnative shrub,

Rosa bracteata

(Macartney rose) was removed in 1995. Post-brush removal, the Texas golden 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 United States 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. Even so, the presence of other flowering plants at gladecress sites could help to attract and maintain a reservoir of potential pollinators, thereby increasing the chances for the gladecress to be cross-pollinated. This would benefit the species by potentially providing, or maintaining, a higher level of genetic diversity.

Distribution and Status

Texas golden gladecress is known from eight locations (historic and extant), 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 Glade Site 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 1

Extant

By 2001, was less than 100 ft² (9 m²)

Private & State ROW.

San Augustine

Chapel Hill (also known as Tiger Creek)

Extant

Tract on which Texas golden gladecress was found was less than 0.25 ac (0.1 ha)

Private.

Sabine

Geneva

Extant

Size of site was ~ 100 ft² (9 m²)

Private & State ROW.

Nacogdoches

Simpson Farms (introduced population)

Extant through 2009. Site was eradicated by pipeline in 2011

Population ~ 200 ft² (18 m²) in size

Private.

San Augustine

Caney Creek Glade Site 7

Status unknown. Possibly extant—not accessible in last 24 years

Small population; locally abundant in very small area

Private.

San Augustine

Caney Creek Glade Site 2

Site is now excavated pits

Site was ~ 3 ac (1.21 ha)

Private.

San Augustine

Caney Creek Glade Site 6

Site is now excavated pits. Possibility that some habitat and plants remain on adjacent, unquarried land

Multiple tracts totaling ~ 10 ac. Sites 6, 7, and 8 in different areas on these tracts. Site 6 was the largest known population (thousands of plants)

Private.

San Augustine

Caney Creek Glade Site 8

Site lost to excavated pits

Very small population on a degraded outcrop

Private.

Four Texas golden gladecress populations (Caney Creek Glade 1, Chapel Hill, Geneva, and Simpson Farms) were present through 2009, the last year that the plants were surveyed and counted (Singhurst 2011a, pers. comm.). In October 2011, Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (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 in October 2011 (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.), and the presence of the plants themselves was subsequently observed at the three accessible sites in February 2012 (Singhurst 2012f, p. 1).

Three San Augustine County occurrences (Caney Creek Glade Sites 2, 6, and 8) were believed extirpated, at least in large part, by construction of glauconite mines (open pits) beginning in the late 1990s. 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 Caney Creek Glade 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.

For Caney Creek Glade Site 7, the last TXNDD (2012b, unpaginated) element of occurrence record was from 1988, a time when the presence of Texas golden gladecress was confirmed at the site. The site was visited by a forestry consultant in 1996, who described the glade as being intact at that time. This individual revisited the site in 2000, and found invasive woody plants encroaching into the glade (Walker 2012, p. 4). There were no further site visits due to lack of access to this privately owned tract. Satellite images taken as recently as 2008 show this 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 (Service 2010a, 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 through it. This represents a loss of 65 percent of the known plants. After 2009, approximately 400 plants in three populations were all that remained of this species. The number of Texas golden gladecress plants fluctuated widely from year to year, likely due to differences in precipitation levels between years. The Texas golden 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 Caney Creek Glade Site 1 decreased from 490 to 96 plants (Service 2010a, p. 5).

Table 2—Population Estimates for Texas Golden Gladecress At Monitored Sites

Year

Chapel Hill

Caney Creek Glade 1

Geneva

Simpson Farms

1999

91

490

319

*NS

2000

67

96

NS

NS

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 Texas golden 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 (Singhurst 2009, p. 1) 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 Caney Creek Glade 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 Caney Creek Glade Site 1 is less than 100 feet squared (ft

2

) (9 meters squared (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 Texas golden 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 Texas golden 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, and 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 Texas golden gladecress and white bladderpod occurrence in the San Augustine glades. The San Augustine glades were delineated by TNC as a subset of the Weches glades for purposes of developing an area conservation plan. The San Augustine glades are located in north-central and northeastern San Augustine County. TNC was granted access to 14 of the 44 sites, but found little Weches glade habitat, and no new Texas golden gladecress or white bladderpod sites (Turner 2003, in Service 2010a, p. 3).

Conservation

The Texas golden gladecress was included as a nested element within the Coastal Plain Carbonate Glades conservation element of the San Augustine Glades Area Conservation Plan developed by TNC of Texas in 2003 (TNC 2003, entire). This plan was envisioned to provide guidance for the conservation and restoration of a network of ecologically functional forests and glades along the Weches Geological Formation in San Augustine County. The plan was generated through TNC's structured conservation planning process, which relied on a science team with expertise in east Texas flora and habitats, including members from academia, botanical institutions, and Federal and State agencies. The conservation planning process concluded that at least 8 viable (self-sustaining, ecologically functioning) populations of Texas golden gladecress, containing an average of 500 individual plants each, at least 1 out of every 5 years, was the target conservation goal for the species (TNC 2003, pp. 8, 12).

Neches River Rose-Mallow

Taxonomy and Description

Hibiscus dasycalyx

(Neches River rose-mallow) (Blake and Shiller) 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). The Neches River rose-mallow generally produces a single creamy white (rarely pink) flower at the base of the leaf stalks along the uppermost branches or stems (Blanchard 1976, pp. 27-28; Warnock 1995, p. 2; Poole

et al.

2007, pp. 264-265). Because the plants are single to multi-stemmed and each branch or stem can have numerous leaves, the total number of flowers per plant can number in the hundreds (Poole 2013b, pers. comm.). Flowering occurs 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). Large and numerous stamens are monodelphous, forming a tube that is united with the base of the petals (Klips 1999, p. 270).

The Neches River rose-mallow was first collected by Ivan Shiller on June 23, 1955, at the type locality at SH 94 (also referred to as Apple Springs), Trinity County, Texas, and it was later recognized it as a distinct species (Correll and Johnston 1979, pp. 1030-1031). Blake (1958, p. 277) determined that the Neches River 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 (all in Warnock 1995, pp. 1-2; Poole 2002, pers. comm.) all recognized the Neches River rose-mallow as a distinct species.

Two similar-looking

Hibiscus

species,

H. laevis

(halberdleaf rose-mallow) and

H. moscheutos

(crimsoneyed or wooly rose-mallow) are wetland species documented in areas where the Neches River rose-mallow occurs. 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). Similar to

H. moscheutos,

the Neches River rose-mallow has a hairy calyx but with larger, spreading hairs rather than a covering of small, short hairs (Warnock 1995, pp. 2-3). Geographically, these three species can be found within similar habitats, but the halberdleaf and the crimsoneyed rose-mallows prefer areas near deeper water and are found along edges of major rivers and streams (Blanchard 1976, pp. 10-14; Poole 2011b, pers. comm.), compared with the Neches River rose-mallow, which is found in side channels and floodplains of major river drainages. Based on the best scientific and commercial data available on the species' morphology, biology, and habitat-specific needs, we conclude that the Neches River rose-mallow is a valid taxon.

Habitat

The Neches River rose-mallow is endemic to the 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, Harrison, and Trinity Counties, and has been introduced into Nacogdoches and Houston Counties. Shortleaf-loblolly pine-hardwood forests, longleaf pine (

Pinus palustris

), and loblolly pine forest (

Pinus taeda

) dominate the Pineywoods vegetation region (Telfair 1983, p. 29; Diggs

et al.

2006, p. 6). More specifically, Neches River rose-mallow is found within seasonally flooded river floodplains as described by Diggs

et al.

(2006), where the natural bottomlands occupy flat, broad portions of the floodplains of major rivers and are seasonally inundated. Loamy to clayey soils seasonally flood and host flood-tolerant species of

Quercus

sp. (oak),

Liquidambar styraciflua

(sweetgum),

Ulmus americana

(American elm),

Nyssa biflora

(swamp tupelo), and

Acer rubrum

(red maple) (Diggs

et al.

2006, p. 103). Bottomland and floodplain areas may be dominated by

Q. lyrata

(overcup oak). Stands of shortleaf, longleaf, and loblolly pine are not occupied by the Neches River rose-mallow. 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).

Table 3—Native Plant Associates of Neches River Rose-Mallow

Scientific name

Common name

Native Woody Plant Associates

Carya aquatica

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 ovata

buckwheat vine.

Carex lupulina

common hop sedge.

Chasmanthium sessilifolium

longleaf woodoats.

Diodia virginiana

Virginia buttonweed.

Eichhornia crassipes

water hyacinth.

Heliotropium indicum

Indian heliotrope.

Hibiscus moscheutos

crimsoneyed rose-mallow.

H. moscheutos

wooly rose-mallow.

H. laevis

(=

H. militaris

)

halberdleaf rose-mallow.

Hydrolea ovata

ovate false fiddleleaf.

Hydrocotyle ranunculoides

floating pennywort.

Juncus effusus

common rush.

Ludwigia leptocarpa

anglestem primrose-willow.

Nuphar lutea

yellow pond-lily.

Phanopyrum gymnocarpon

Savannah-panicgrass.

Panicum rigidulum

redtop panicgrass.

Pluchea foetida

stinking camphorweed.

Polygonum hydropiperoides

swamp smartweed.

Pontederia cordata

pickerelweed.

Rhynchospora corniculata

shortbristle horned beaksedge.

Sesbania herbacea

bigpod sesbania.

Scirpus cyperinus

woolgrass.

Thalia dealbata

powdery alligator-flag.

Trachelospermum difforme

climbing dogbane.

Sites where the Neches River rose-mallow has been found have been described as sloughs, oxbows, terraces, and sand bars. Sites are seasonally inundated or regularly flooded bottomlands (Diggs

et al.

2006, p. 103) that include low areas (Warnock 1995, p. 13) within the Neches, Sabine, and Angelina River basins and Mud and Tantabogue Creek basins. Soils are classified generically as hydric alluvials (water-saturated soils) of the Inceptisol or Entisol orders (Diggs

et al.

2006, pp. 46, 79) and although generally water-saturated, can often be surficially dry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) completed soils surveys for all counties with known occurrences of the Neches River 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). Warnock (1995) noted that seed dispersal is likely by water, and Scott (1997, p. 5) also stated that seed dispersal appears to be entirely water dependent. While water-mediated seed dispersal of the Neches River rose-mallow is highly likely, it is not known that flowing water is required for downstream dispersal of rose-mallow seeds. 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 Neches River rose-mallow is a perennial that dies back to the ground every year and resprouts from the base; however, the plant still maintains aboveground stems. Longevity of the species is unknown, but it may be long-lived. Cross-pollination occurs (Blanchard 1976, p. 38) within the Neches River 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 Neches River rose-mallow along 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 is typical within Neches River rose-mallow habitat (Warnock 1995, pp. 11, 13), but plants also grow in partial sun (as is the case at SH 204). Sunlight is needed for blooming, as the blooming period may only last 1 day (Snow and Spira 1993, p. 160).

Potential pollinators of the Neches River 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

Hibiscus 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, in grass (Black

et al.

2009, p. 12), or in open, grassy habitat (Warriner 2012a, pers. comm.). Other aboveground-nesting bees that may potentially pollinate the Neches River 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) (Gathmann 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 Neches River rose-mallow plants, suggesting that the scentless plant bug may be a pollinator as well as a consumer of the Neches River rose-mallow.

Natural fires occurred every 1 to 3 years in east Texas (Landers

et al.

1990, p. 136; Landers 1991, p. 73) and controlled the overgrowth of longleaf and loblolly pine, as well as nonnative species. In more recent history, humans used fire to suppress overgrowth. Fire suppression allows for sweetgum, oaks,

Carya

sp. (hickories),

Diospyros virginiana

(common persimmon), and

Magnolia grandiflora

(southern magnolia) to invade the natural pine forests (Daubenmire 1990, p. 341; Gilliam and Platt 1999, p. 22), and reduce the open canopy needed by the Neches River rose-mallow. Lack of fire increases the opportunity for nonnative species, such as

Triadica sebifera

(Chinese tallow), to invade these sites.

Distribution and Status

The natural geographic range of the Neches River rose-mallow is within Trinity, Houston, Harrison, and Cherokee Counties, Texas, on 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 Neches River rose-mallow have been introduced within their natural geographic range on Federal lands in Houston County. In total, there are 12 occurrences of Neches River rose-mallow (see Table 4). However, only 11 of these are within the known geographic range and, as of October 2011, are considered occupied by the Neches River rose-mallow. The Neches River rose-mallow plants within the SH 230 ROW have not been seen since 2002, and the site was considered extirpated. In 2011, Neches River rose-mallow plants were not located at this site, but in 2012, a graduate student from Stephen F. Austin State University reported seeing the Neches River rose-mallow along SH 230 in the ROW somewhere near the former site (Melinchuk 2012, p. 3).

Table 4—Population Estimates for Known Neches River Rose-Mallow Occurrences

Site

County

First and last

observation

Plant estimates

(or otherwise noted)

1. Compartment 55, Davy Crockett National Forest (NF)

Houston

2002-2003; 2011

750 in 2002; 500 in 2005; 1,000 in 2006; in 2007 and 2008, no changes from 2006; 750 in 2010; 100-200 plants in October 2011; 407 stems in October 2011.

2. Compartment 16, Davy Crockett NF (introduced)

Houston

2000; 2011

450 in 2000; 115 in 2002; 78 stems in 2003; 40 in 2004; between 20 and 40 in 2005; 50 in 2006; in 2007 and 2008, no changes from 2006; 90 in 2010; 43 stem clusters in 2011.

3. Compartment 11, Davy Crockett NF (introduced)

Houston

2004; 2011

200 in 2004; 75 plants in 2005; 10 in 2006; in 2007 and 2008, no changes from 2006; 7 in 2010; 10 stem clusters in 2011.

4. Compartment 20, Davy Crockett NF (introduced)

Houston

2000; 2011

200-250 in 2000 (also reported that 350 plants introduced); several hundred blossoms in 2001; 70 in summer and fall of 2002; 182 in 2002; 291 stems in 2003; 100 in 2005; 350 in 2006; in 2007 and 2008, no changes from 2006, but only 150 seed pods in 2007; 120 in 2010; 101 stem clusters 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; 2-3 in 1992; maximum of 27 in 1993; 38 in 1994; 41 in 1995; 16 in 1996 (only a partial survey); 15-20 on private land in 1997; 13 in 1998; 49 in 1999; 17 along ROW and 300 observed on private land in 2000; 15 and 300+ on private land in 2001; 20 along ROW and fewer than 100 observed on private land in 2002; 3 in 2003; 20 and 0 on private land in 2005; none in 2007; 35 along powerline in 2010; 128 stem clusters along ROW in 2011.

6. SH 204 ROW-Mud Creek

Cherokee

1992; 2011

1 in 1992 and 1993; 26 within 3 subpopulations in fall 1993; 1 in 1994-1996; 1 observed then an additional 75 in 1997 under bridge; 1 in 1998; 2 in 1999; 16 in 2000; 5 in 2001; none in 2002; 17 in 2003; none in 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009; 46 in 2010 in 4 subpopulations; 1 plant in one subpopulation in summer 2011; 20 stem clusters in 6 subpopulations 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, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2011. Considered extripated.

8. Lovelady

Houston

2011

50-70 in 1991; 7 in 1992; 58 in 1993; several hundred blossoms in 2001; 400 along ROW in 2002; 900 blossoms or seedpods in 2007; observed in 2008, but no estimates; 20 in 2010; 539 stem clusters in 2011.

9. Mill Creek Gardens (introduced)

Nacogdoches

1995; 2011

96 in 1995; hundreds in October 2011.

10. Harrison Site

Harrison

Not observed after 1980

Herbarium specimen was recently confirmed again 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; 1978

No estimates. Searches occurred in 1992 and 1993, but no plants were observed.

Populations along SH ROWs include SH 94 in Trinity County, collected in 1955 (Blake 1958, p. 277); SH 204 in Cherokee County, first observed in 1992; and SH 230 in Houston County, first observed in 1978. The TPWD performed annual SH ROW monitoring along SH 94 from 1993 thru 2001 (Poole, 2001, p. 1); along SH 204 from 1993 thru 2003 (Poole 2001, p. 1; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 20-28); and along SH 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 Neches River 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 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 in 2004 (The Texas Land Conservancy 2011), an organization previously known as the Natural Areas Preservation Association (NAPA). The Neches River rose-mallow plants in this site, referred to as Lovelady, are part of a population that included the Neches River rose-mallow plants in the SH 230 ROW. The Neches River rose-mallow plants within the SH 230 ROW have not been observed since 2002, and the site is considered extirpated (TXNDD 2012a, pp. 61-67). The Lovelady site was recently surveyed in 2011, and although 539 stem clusters 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 Neches River 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 ROW, 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 Neches River 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 NF, Houston County, Texas, contains four extant sites, three introduced and one natural, of the Neches River rose-mallow. 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 was introduced with 450 plants (Davis 2000, pers. comm.; McCormick 2002, p. 1; Service 2000, p. 3); compartment 20 with 200-250 plants (Davis 2000, pers. comm.; McCormick 2002, p. 2; Service 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 (Service 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 NF appear to have declined dramatically.

The four remaining Neches River rose-mallow sites have had sporadic monitoring or have not been visited in recent years. In 1995, Stephen F. Austin State University Mast Arboretum planted 96 Neches River 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 Mast Arboretum. Neches River rose-mallow plants at this site were observed in 1997, 1998, 2001, 2009, and 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 Neches River rose-mallow (Creech 2011c, pers. comm.). Another site in Harrison County, Texas, was last verified by a specimen collected in 1980. The identification of this specimen was identified as Neches River rose-mallow and later considered

Hibiscus laevis

(Melinchuk 2012, p. 2). Not until 2011, was it confirmed that the specimen collected was the Neches River rose-mallow (Birnbaum 2011, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 12-13). Although, the Harrison County site has not been visited since 1980, and drought and severe storms might have impacted this site but without a lack of evidence suggesting the species' extirpation from either threat, we presume that Neches River rose-mallow is extant at this site. 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 Neches River rose-mallow on the Camp Olympia site is unknown. 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 2001; plants were seen, but no plant counts were done.

Conservation

We relied on Pavlik's Minimum Viable Population analysis tool (1996, pp. 127-155) and species' experts to determine the conservation goals of the species. Based on the best known and available scientific information on the species' life-history and reproductive characteristics, we concluded that the conservation goals for the Neches River rose-mallow include 10 viable populations, each containing at least 1,400 individual plants. The species is limited to the Neches, Sabine, and Angelina River basins and the Mud and Tantabogue Creek basins with 11 extant sites throughout this range. However, many of these sites were introduced and are now compromised by threats from feral hog damage, hydrological changes, nonnative and native species encroachment into habitat, construction projects, and herbicide overspray. Future management actions that ameliorate these threats could allow for the species to expand within its known range. The extant populations are generally small. The only site that has come close to reaching the conservation goals is on compartment 55 of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS); however, it still only comprises 53 percent of the needed plants at this site (750 plants were seen in 2010).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed listing for the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow during two comment periods. The first comment period, associated with the publication of the proposed rule (77 FR 55968), opened on September 11, 2012, and closed on November 13, 2012. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Houston County Courier, Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel, and Marshall News Messenger. We also requested comments on the proposed listing during a comment period that opened April 16, 2013, and closed on May 16, 2013 (78 FR 22506). We received requests for a public hearing, which was held on May 1, 2013, in Nacogdoches, Texas. Newspaper notices inviting public comment for this second comment period were published in the San Augustine Tribune and Cherokeean Herald in addition to the three papers listed above. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific experts and organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule during these comment periods.

We received approximately 63 public comments. All substantive information provided during both comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below. Comments addressed below are grouped into general issues specifically relating to the listing of Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from six knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the biology and ecology of the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow; the geographic region in which these species occur and characteristics of their habitats, including the unique geology; and land uses common to the region that may bear on the threats to both species. We received responses from four of the peer reviewers.

We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding listing of the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow. The peer reviewers generally agreed with portions of our assessment, including the threats analysis, and most of our conclusions, although they pointed out areas where additional research would refine our understanding of the two species' habitat requirements and range. The peer reviewers provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions for future research that would inform future surveys to refine the geographic range and that would help with management and recovery efforts. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

(1)

Comment:

One peer reviewer asked for clarification regarding the

numbers of Texas golden gladecress populations in State highway ROWs. One location in the proposed rule referred three extant sites within State highway ROW; however, another location refers to only two extant populations within State ROWs.

Our Response:

We recognize that the language in the proposed rule may be misleading or easily misconstrued because it implies that the three confirmed Texas golden gladecress populations are all located in ROWs. We have changed the language in the referenced paragraph to reflect the fact that only two of the extant populations, Geneva and Caney Creek Glade Site 1, occur in ROWs, which are both managed by TXDOT. The third extant population at Chapel Hill is located on a small tract adjacent to a county road and is not considered to extend into any type of road ROW.

(2)

Comment:

One peer reviewer stated his opinion that that there is no conservation land, fee simple or under easement, for either of these species. He alluded to the land on which these species' habitats occur being some of the cheapest in east Texas and suggested that it would be more cost effective to purchase fee title or conservation easements of small tracts to conserve these species because creation of a series of small protected sites would work well for an endemic species. He indicated that the habitat areas in question have very little commercial value, with the Weches glades having no value for forestry or agriculture. He acknowledged that the value of the Weches Formation for glauconite mining exceeds values for other uses and indicated his opinion that it would be appropriate to estimate the commercial value of the glauconite mined on a site and match this value.

Our Response:

We are in agreement with the first part of this comment about the lack of conservation lands for the Texas golden gladecress; however, this is not true for the Neches River rose-mallow. The Texas Land Conservancy has fee title ownership of the land on which the Neches River rose-mallow's Lovelady population in Houston County is located. The Texas Land Conservancy bought this land specifically to conserve the Neches River rose-mallow and manages the site accordingly. The United States Forest Service (USFS) also has Neches River rose-mallow in several compartments, is aware of the species, and manages those compartments to avoid impacts.

Further, the Act requires us to determine if the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow warrant listing solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available as evaluated through our assessment of the five listing factors set forth in the Act. We previously determined that the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow warranted listing under the Act, making them candidate species. However, the listing of these species was precluded by the necessity to commit limited funds and staff to complete higher priority listing actions for other species. The Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow have been included in our annual candidate notices of review for multiple years. In our annual review of these species, scientific literature and data have, and continue to, indicate that these species are impacted by ongoing threats. Any future conservation actions, such as purchasing land from willing landowners, or land management efforts to ameliorate threats, will be evaluated as part of the recovery planning process.

(3)

Comment:

Two peer reviewers discussed the geography of the Weches Formation and wondered how it may influence the range of the Texas golden gladecress. One reviewer indicated that it is a common misconception that the Weches Formation centers on Nacogdoches and San Augustine Counties. He pointed out that the Weches Formation also extends over 100 miles (161 km) to the north into Smith, Wood, Upshur, Marion, and Cass Counties in Texas, and even across into Miller County, Arkansas. A second reviewer described the Weches formation as consisting of Eocene age deposits lying mostly in an east-west band. This reviewer further pointed out a northeast to southwest trend in Cherokee County, Texas, proceeding northeastward toward Tyler, Texas. Referencing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's soils surveys of Cherokee, Nacogdoches, Houston, San Augustine, and Sabine Counties, the reviewer indicated that most acreage of Weches Outcrop may occur in Cherokee County. The former reviewer indicated that he was not aware of any systematic surveys of these widely dispersed outcrops for the presence of the endemic glade plants. He recommended that some attention and resources be directed at exploring the other Weches outcrops that stretch north to Cass County and suggested that any ruling by the Service or subsequent recovery plan for Texas golden gladecress include provisions for surveying these areas.

Our Response:

The Service recognizes the extent of the Weches Formation reaches the above referenced counties. However, the Service has not found or received any data indicating that the species is present in these other counties. The Service is required to use the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of listing. We relied on all available information regarding the known occurrences of the Texas golden gladecress at the time of listing; none of the known occurrences was reported from outside Sabine and San Augustine Counties (with the exception of the introduced population in Nacogdoches County). Further analysis of geological correlations with the Texas golden gladecress is an issue to be addressed in recovery planning. Furthermore, as a federally listed endangered species, the Texas golden gladecress will be afforded the protections of the Act wherever found.

(4)

Comment:

One peer reviewer pointed out that our assessment of the Weches Formation did not take into account the work of geologists. He suggested referencing the body of work on the chemistry and mineralogy of the Weches by Ernest Ledger and students that document a wide variation in the attributes of the Weches across its range from San Augustine and Nacogdoches Counties, north over 100 miles (161 km) to Cass County. In his opinion, we need to know about the variability of the Weches Formation in terms of available calcium and long-term pH change to identify more potential sites for the Texas golden gladecress. This reviewer indicated that Ledger's chemical analyses of Weches constituent minerals shows hard data on the low-level presence of nutrients in some locations. Some of these may be suitable for mining as soil additives in the future when current sources like phosphate rock deposits are mined-out. Analyses of the chemical composition of the rock should be considered when selecting potential conservation sites. He suggested that a critical look at Ledger's work might show that unusual features of the Weches Formation that promote the occurrence of Texas golden gladecress and associated glade plants are limited to the southern end of the Weches Formation. Similarly, this peer reviewer referred to the known variations in the Weches Formation and suggests that we need a better understanding of the geology and soils conditions underlying Texas golden gladecress in order to plan for future surveys for the species.

Our Response:

We recognize that variability of Weches outcrops does exist across the Weches Formation throughout the numerous counties listed above. We agree that a better characterization of the geology and soils underlying known Texas golden gladecress populations could provide useful information. However, there are

likely other factors that characterize individual outcrop sites that may also be important (for additional information, see “Invasive Species” under

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

of this rule). Further, the Service must use the best available scientific and commercial data available at the time of listing. Determining the chemical components of the geological formations beneath known glade sites is not a feasible accomplishment within the timeframe we have to publish our final determination. This research would be addressed in recovery planning. For purposes of the proposed rule and this final rule to list the Texas golden gladecress, we used the more general Weches Formation outcrops descriptions, and we more specifically relied on the geologic and soils information available from one known Texas golden gladecress population site, as well as from one white bladderpod site. Please see the “Habitat” section for the Texas golden gladecress in this final rule for more information.

The commenter did not provide specific references for Ledger's research. However, we attempted to locate research conducted by Ledger on this topic. We were able to locate some of Ledger's research, and we incorporated this into this final rule under the “Habitat” section for the Texas golden gladecress. However, this information did not modify our conclusions of our analysis of threats or determination that the species meets the definition of an endangered species under the Act.

(5)

Comment:

One peer reviewer commented that the essential habitat component of Weches outcrops underlying Texas golden gladecress populations is the combination of thin soil over a calcium-rich parent material. In the Weches Formation, the calcium is derived from a myriad of fossilized, calcium-dominated oyster shells and other marine life.

Our Response:

The peer reviewer's verbiage was added to the Texas golden gladecress's “Habitat” description in this final rule to further illustrate the derivation of calcium from marine organisms that is true of the east Texas Weches Formation and which may be different from habitat of other

Leavenworthia

species.

(6)

Comment:

One peer reviewer indicated that the developed soils that occur near the Weches outcrops are included in the Bub, Trawick, Nacogdoches, or Chireno soil series. He described the Chireno soil series as unique because it is the only “blackland soil” in east Texas. Chireno soils are classified as “mollisols” or blackland soils and are developed under prolonged grassland habitat. This reviewer used the U.S. Department of Agriculture's soil surveys for Sabine, San Augustine, Nacogdoches, and Houston Counties to estimate roughly 3,000 acres (1,214 ha) of this soil type occurring in a four-county area. He indicated that these soils may underlie prairies (glades) and that Native Americans regularly burned these areas either for protection from wildfires or enemies, or to entice game animals.

Our Response:

Although the reviewer does not specifically suggest that we add Chireno soils to the other soils known to support Texas golden gladecress habitat, this is how we have interpreted his comment. Based on the development of these blackland soils being dependent on long-term prairie cover, and the fact that other literature describes the Pineywoods glades as being within prairies, or as part of a combination of prairies and glades, information may indicate the potential for Weches outcrops within this soil series to support the herbaceous glades of which Texas golden gladecress may be a component. Mollisols, of which the Chireno series is one, are soils of grassland ecosystems, characterized by a thick, dark surface horizon that was developed under prolonged grassland habitat (Grunwald 2013, pp. 1-2). We based the soil parameters for Texas golden gladecress habitat on the soil descriptions in the TXNDD's element of occurrence records, the thesis by Robert George (George 1987, entire), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's soil survey layers underlying all known Texas golden gladecress populations. The known Texas golden gladecress occurrences are all found on shallow, gravelly soils or almost bare bedrock overlying Trawick, Bub, or Nacogdoches soils, situations that would not support dense stands of prairie grasses, at least in the portion of the outcrop where the Texas golden gladecress is growing. Further investigation of the Chireno series for the presence of Texas golden gladecress would be addressed during the recovery process.

(7)

Comment:

One peer reviewer provided us with confirmation that the glade habitat at the Texas golden gladecress population site referred to as Caney Creek Glade 7 was still intact as of spring 1996, when this reviewer visited the site. However, on a second visit in 2000, encroachment by weedy and woody species was prevalent at this site.

Our Response:

This comment affirms our 2012 evaluation of this site, as derived from analysis of satellite imagery. As indicated in our proposed rule and this final rule, the population being referenced may still be present as of 2012, but from satellite imagery the site appeared to be overgrown with woody vegetation. Based on the habitat at Caney Creek Glade Site 7 remaining intact (not excavated or built over), with the exception of woody overgrowth, we assume that Texas golden gladecress plants still occupy this site.

(8)

Comment:

One peer reviewer relayed personal observations that accumulation of pine leaf litter and eventual degradation of the material supports the germination of pine seed. This reviewer indicated that this likely happens because the leaf litter debris provides a small but steady increase of soil depth on the rocky, thin soil common in the Weches glades.

Our Response:

This comment supports the data in our proposed rule and this final rule to list the Texas golden gladecress, which state that planting of pine trees in close proximity to small glades may produce leaf litter that can accumulate within a glade, sometimes covering its surface and smothering smaller glade plants. As noted by the reviewer, the accumulation of pine leaf litter and the byproducts of its decomposition would create and enhance layers of organic material and create conditions favorable to natural pine seedling establishment. This would alter the nature of the glades by eventually deepening soils within the glade, thereby allowing other plants, including woody plants that previously did not occur in the short, herbaceous plant community, to take over these areas that formerly had too shallow and poor soil to support shrubs and trees. This situation would also enhance invasion by other plants, including Macartney rose, that would benefit from additional soil. Not only would the glade vegetation undergo succession to shrubs and trees, but the glades would also be altered by the shading and would hold moisture in the soil. All of these conditions would impede the continued existence of the Texas golden gladecress by altering the competitive advantage that this plant has in the glade environment.

(9)

Comment:

One peer reviewer suggested evaluating a specific, potential Texas golden gladecress site based on the presence of the Texas golden gladecress's known associated species. The site is located on the SH 21 ROW, near the Sabine, Davy Crockett NF compartment 76, adjacent to a glauconite quarry.

Our Response:

From information provided to us early in the proposed rule's preparation stage, we were aware

that flora and fauna surveys were done on USFS lands in Sabine County in association with the debris cleanup effort post-Hurricanes Rita and Ike. These surveys, in conjunction with results of botanical surveys conducted before this time, failed to document the Texas golden gladecress on any of these USFS lands, although we do not know if lands outside of the USFS were included in any of the surveys. However, strategies for continued evaluation of potential but unconfirmed new sites will be addressed during the recovery planning process.

(10)

Comment:

One peer reviewer suggested that mention be made of the possibility for illuminating the evolutionary history of these species by genetic studies and that this would be useful in determining management strategies.

Our Response:

This is an issue that may be addressed during recovery planning.

(11)

Comment:

A peer reviewer provided additional literature to consider in our analysis on the hybridization of the Neches River rose-mallow. One was by Klips (1995) and the other by Mendoza (2004). These studies provide genetic insight of the relatedness between Neches River rose-mallow and two co-occurring species,

Hibiscus moscheutos

and

H. laevis.

Both researchers agree with the Service's opinion that the Neches River rose-mallow is a distinct species. These studies review the relatedness between the Neches River rose-mallow and other species; however, they do not investigate hybridization. Another peer reviewer noted the potential hybridization of the Neches River rose-mallow on compartment 20 in the Davy Crockett NF, in October 2012. Plants appeared to be

H. dasycalyx,

but the calyx was lacking the hairy surface typical of the species. The reviewer thought that the species was a potential cross with

H. laevis.

Our Response:

The Service has reviewed this new information and incorporated it into the threats section under “Hybridization” in this final rule. These studies pertain to the relatedness between the Neches River rose-mallow and other species. They do not investigate hybridization of these species. Although the genus

Hibiscus

readily hybridizes within the nursery trade, hybridization between Neches River rose-mallow and another

Hibiscus

under natural conditions has not been verified. Drought conditions can alter the plants morphological or physical characteristics including leaf size, structure, and overall plant height (Fair 2009, p. 1). Further investigation into the occurrence of hybridization and its impacts on the population are necessary. The University of Texas-Tyler is researching the hybridization issue for Neches River rose-mallow and its impacts on the population; however, the project is only in its infancy, and no results have been determined. We do not consider hybridization a threat to the Neches River rose-mallow at this time.

(12)

Comment:

One peer reviewer reported that in October 2012, she and a USFS botanist observed sedimentation along ROW work on both sides of SH 94. They anticipated that resurfacing and re-crowning work of the highway will likely increase runoff to this site. The reviewer noted that, during road improvement, TXDOT installs temporary culverts to assure water flow and exchange during construction. Another reviewer questioned whether county and municipal governments, who buy glauconite for road projects, are required to demonstrate that endangered species like white bladderpod are not being negatively impacted by their road-building activities. He further asked whether the counties are receiving State or Federal funds to assist with road building.

Our Response:

The Service is aware of the bridge replacement along SH 94, but as of 2011, the construction and associated impacts of this project had not progressed into Neches River rose-mallow habitats (Adams 2011c, pers. comm.). Since the start of the SH 94 road expansion project, TXDOT has employed the use of temporary culverts and orange construction fencing around Neches River rose-mallow sites and has restricted workers from these fenced-off areas. Fenced-off areas encompassed far more area than that habitat known to be occupied by the Neches River rose-mallow (Adams 2013b, pers. comm.). In wetlands where sedimentation might continue despite the use of the above management activities, silt curtains (or silt fence) placed in conjunction with orange construction fencing have been installed (Adams 2013b, pers. comm.). Currently, all avoidance measures are voluntary.

However, on the effective date of this final rule (see

DATES

), the Neches River rose-mallow will become a federally threatened species under the Act. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out (that is, projects with a Federal nexus) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat, if any is designated. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service (see Available Conservation Measures in this final rule for more discussion of this process). If this project, or any other project, has a Federal nexus and the project may affect a federally listed species then the Federal action agency will need to consult with the Service. We are publishing a final rule on the designation of critical habitat the Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow under the Act elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

.

(13)

Comment:

One peer reviewer made several comments on invasive species and provided the Service with new information on the biology of Chinese tallow. The reviewer's recent observations in 2012, along with a USFS botanist, found Chinese tallow and

Melia azedarach

(Chinaberry) within compartment 16, Davy Crockett NF. Chinese tallow has invaded all known Neches River rose-mallow sites, yet is more prominent in SH 94 and compartment 16, Davy Crockett NF sites. The reviewer provided a literature citation, Gan

et al.

2009. Additionally, the reviewer mentioned that coastal bermudagrass (

Cynodon dactylon

) is one of the most serious, nonnative, invasive species threats to the Neches River rose-mallow.

Our Response:

As described in the proposed rule, we agree with the peer reviewer that nonnative species are a threat to the Neches River rose-mallow. We incorporated the additional information and biological data on tallow provided in Gan

et al.

2009 into the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this final rule. This additional information did not modify our listing determination.

At the time the proposed rule was published, we were only aware of one location at Boggy Slough in Houston County where coastal bermudagrass was observed. However, new information was provided to the Service during a public comment period. We are now aware of three additional sites where encroachment from coastal bermudagrass was observed. These sites included: The Texas Land Conservancy, where it is common; SH 204 ROW, where it is abundant (Poole 2013a, pers. comm.); and the original site at the SH 94—Boggy Slough, where it is locally common in the interior of the unit (Allen 2011a, pers. comm.). At the planted site on Boggy Slough, Neches River rose-mallow was observed as recently as August 2012. Although the coastal bermudagrass has the potential to spread and grow quickly, and has been known to form monocultures along

highway ROWs, the Neches River rose-mallow and coastal bermudagrass do not necessarily grow naturally in the same habitat. Coastal bermudagrass is not typically found within wetland areas. Further, the Neches River rose-mallow is a taller growing species, a feature that prevents itself from being shaded out by coastal bermudagrass. Based on the above information, the Service does not consider coastal bermudagrass a threat at this time. The TPWD concurs with the Service that coastal bermudagrass is not considered a threat at this time (Poole 2013a, pers. comm.).

The nonnative species Chinaberry has not been previously noted at any of the sites, including the site mentioned by the commenter, compartment 16 on the Davy Crockett NF. The Service investigated this comment further, and Chinaberry was not mentioned in the TXNDD database information. Based on this information the Service does not consider Chinaberry a threat at this time.

(14)

Comment:

A peer reviewer indicated that due to drought in 2011, the numbers of plants were a lot fewer than years previous in SH 94 ROW and compartment 55, Davy Crockett NF. On October 3, 2012, observers went to specific locations in these compartments where plants were known to occur, and none could be found. In 2013, rainfall has been about average to date, but the reviewer concluded that effects were evident from previous drought.

Our Response:

We agree that drought has caused impacts to said populations and likely other populations. Drought conditions have reduced the number of plants and have stunted overall Neches River rose-mallow plant growth (TXNDD 2012a, p. 8). We do not have knowledge of how drought affects the Neches River rose-mallow on a larger scale or how it impacts flowering or seed production. However, it is possible that during drought conditions, floral characteristics that are normally easily recognizable could be reduced and make identification of Neches River rose-mallow more difficult (Poole 2012b, pers. comm.). Since the Neches River rose-mallow is a wetland species, we understand that drought conditions could continue to threaten the habitat as well as the reproductive capability since it is likely that seed dispersal is water-mediated. With the likelihood that seasonal or successive year-round drought conditions will likely continue, ancillary threats from trampling and herbivory may be exacerbated. Drought is discussed in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species in this final rule.

(15)

Comment:

One peer reviewer noted that in spite of the fact that Sabine and San Augustine Counties have not seen major increases in human population, there has been improvement of services, such as communication lines, water lines, domestic gas lines, and power lines. These actions occur primarily in ROWs, and some occur in areas that are situated in potential Texas golden gladecress habitat.

Our Response:

We acknowledge that the installation of new service lines (e.g., communication, water, domestic gas, and power lines) could potentially occur in more rural areas, and these activities typically occur in road ROWs, such as where the Texas golden gladecress occurs. There are two known Texas golden gladecress sites that extend into road ROWs. When this rule is effective (see

DATES

), section 7 consultation requirements and section 9 prohibitions under the Act will apply to the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow. See our response to Comment 12 and Available Conservation Measures for more discussion of this process.

(16)

Comment:

One peer reviewer pointed out an example of the flaws of teaming these two species together can be seen in the statement in the proposed rule that says, “Prolonged or frequent droughts can exacerbate habitat degradation for both species.” He indicated that a river-bottom dwelling species like the Neches River rose-mallow might be negatively impacted when drought allows other species to encroach. However, drought could positively impact Texas golden gladecress as it might exclude woody closure of glades. This reviewer noted his personal observation of the drought of 2011 dramatically pushing back the edges of glades in the Weches and in tiny saline prairies.

Our Response:

We agree that the droughty conditions of hot, dry summers are a part of the reason why Texas golden gladecress can remain competitive on the glades. However, prolonged drought, especially when it occurs in successive years, has resulted in Texas golden gladecress not appearing above ground in some years, and therefore not flowering or producing seed in those years. We do not know how many years of poor seed production, or no seed production at all, will affect the survival of the population. Negative impacts of drought on the Neches River rose-mallow are discussed in our response to Comment 14 as well in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this final rule.

(17)

Comment:

A peer reviewer commented on the occurrence and use of nonnative and potentially invasive pasture grasses such as coastal bermudagrass,

Paspalum notatum

(bahiagrass), and

Lolium perenne

(perennial ryegrass), which are commonly used to re-vegetate many road ROWs. These grasses are common on most ROWs and aggressively grow in open, sunlit areas.

Our Response:

The Service recognizes the occurrence and use of nonnative and potentially invasive pasture grasses along ROWs, and that ROWs typically become monoculture stands of these invasive species, thereby out-competing natives. The Service has verified that both coastal bermudagrass and bahiagrass are included in mixtures used to re-seed ROWs (Adams 2013c, pers. comm.). There are two Texas golden gladecress and three Neches River rose-mallow known populations growing along ROWs, which could be planted with nonnatives. We are not aware of any Texas golden gladecress sites where the Texas golden gladecress itself is being impacted by these grasses. Coastal bermudagrass has been observed on four Neches River rose-mallow sites (see our response to Comment 13 for additional details). We investigated these nonnative species as potential threats and incorporated this information into our analysis in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section for the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow in this final rule. There is the potential for such nonnative, invasive species to impact the Neches River rose-mallow, as well as the Texas golden gladecress, in the future if these grasses out-compete native plants for soil nutrients, space, and light. However, these invasive species are not currently a threat, and there are no data indicating that these species will be a threat in the near future.

(18)

Comment:

One peer reviewer provided new observations about damage to habitat due to feral hog activity. In October 2012, feral hogs had broken and flattened plants in compartment 16, Davy Crockett NF. Large groups of feral hogs were seen in two Neches River rose-mallow sites (compartment 55 and compartment 16, both in the Davy Crockett NF). Neches River rose-mallow habitat is only surficially dry and can be easily disturbed by hogs, as made evident in compartment 20, Davy Crockett NF.

Our Response:

The Service has included this information in our analysis of feral hog impacts on the Neches River rose-mallow in the Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species section in this final rule. Based on this information, the Service recognizes that feral hogs impact the species and that feral hogs will likely continue to impact the species in the near future. However, at this time, the severity of impacts to the species is low. The level of impacts from feral hogs does not change the determination to list the species as threatened versus endangered.

(19)

Comment:

One peer reviewer commented on the impacts that beavers have had on one Neches River rose-mallow site: Compartment 16, Davy Crockett NF. In general, water levels fluctuated due to beaver activity. It was observed that larger trees along the water's edge were damaged by beavers, although it appears that water levels had receded to the same level prior to the beaver activity.

Our Response:

The Service is aware of beaver presence at compartment 16 of the Davy Crockett NF. We acknowledge that beaver activity (i.e., dams) could have impacted this Neches River rose-mallow site. However, with seasonally fluctuating water levels and no estimates on plant abundance before and after beaver activity, it is unclear how or if beaver activity was a factor in the size of the Neches River rose-mallow population. We are uncertain if there was a correlation between the damage done to this site and the changes in water flow and the site hydrology, and whether this had a positive or negative impact on the species. No other sites have been impacted by beaver activity. We do not consider the effects of beaver damming to be a threat to the Neches River rose-mallow.

(20)

Comment:

One peer reviewer agreed with the use of Weches glauconite as road base material being a threat. He indicated his belief that it should be possible to locate Weches mines where conditions are not suitable for the glade community and reiterated that the Weches is a highly variable rock formation. This peer reviewer provided new information about other uses for Weches glauconite, including animal feed additives, that were not addressed in the proposed rule. This reviewer expressed his opinion that it is also possible that in a few decades the shortage of mineral phosphate rock might make some of the deposits viable for agriculture use. He referred to information from Dr. Ernest Ledger (geologist) regarding instances where rare earth elements are being mined in the Weches or Reklaw Formations.

Our Response:

In analyzing threats to a species, the Service uses the best scientific and commercial data available to analyze the current threats and threats anticipated to occur in the near future. The Service has identified quarrying Weches glauconite as a current and future threat to the Texas golden gladecress. We know that several Texas golden gladecress populations have been lost in areas where glauconite quarries were developed (see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species sections of the proposed rule and this final rule). We did not specifically identify animal feed additive as a use for the Weches glauconite in our proposed rule, but we have incorporated this information into the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this final rule. The impact to the species from quarrying is the clearing and excavation of vegetation and soil during development. The specific uses of the Weches glauconite are not relevant to the impacts from quarrying. However, new uses or an increase in current uses of Weches glauconite may increase the demand of this resource and therefore increase the amount of quarrying activities (that is, ground disturbance). However, the Service does not have information that either of these are occurring.

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal action agencies to consult with the Service to ensure their action do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. However, there are limited or no Federal nexuses for glauconite quarry projects. Entities implementing projects that could impact the Texas golden gladecress could play a significant role in the conservation of the species by voluntarily working with the Service, the State, or conservation groups to construct their projects in such a way as to avoid or minimize impacts to the species. Site selection of quarries outside of endemic plant communities containing Texas golden gladecress could be a measure to avoid or minimize impacts to the species.

Additional research of the habitat requirements of the Texas golden gladecress, particularly the surface soils and subsurface composition of the bedrock, may help in determining whether there are particular outcrops that should be protected for Texas golden gladecress versus ones that will never support the species and would therefore not be problematic if selected for a quarry. This is an issue that may be addressed during recovery planning.

(21)

Comment:

One peer reviewer suggested using genetic evidence to evaluate how past climate changes, particularly drought, as well as dispersal mechanisms and barriers to dispersal, may have affected the distribution and endemism of the Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow. He indicated his opinion that a better understanding of these factors would have bearing on future management considerations.

Our Response:

It is possible that the past droughts have affected the distribution of Neches River rose-mallow and Texas golden gladecress in east Texas. For Neches River rose-mallow, geographic barriers may have arisen due to past drought events, potentially limiting genetic exchange between populations. Humans may have contributed to further endemism of the species by altering habitat, which functionally created barriers to dispersal and resulted in more isolation of populations. However, we can only postulate that these are the reasons for the endemism of the Neches River rose-mallow to certain river systems, and more specifically to surficially dry habitats as compared to other east Texas

Hibiscus

species. Additional research is needed to assess the validity of this hypothesis.

With regard to the Texas golden gladecress, the Weches outcrops generally occur in small, isolated or segmented strips (George 1987, p. 4; George and Nixon 1990, p. 118), making the habitat, in essence, small islands separated from one another by dissimilar habitat. The current patchiness and separation of the Texas golden gladecress population sites may be, at least in part, due to past droughts, but may also be a result of the habitat being fragmented by land conversions or lost to succession by woody species. Because we lack information on seed dispersal of Texas golden gladecress, we do not know how the species spread historically or how it came to be distributed where it is. Therefore, we do not know if the isolation of the populations is due to vicariance (populations on outcrops that are geographically separated by surrounding forest) or due to a lack of dispersal to new habitats or between population sites. Genetic evidence may help to clarify the relatedness or lack thereof between the remaining extant populations, but that may be undertaken as part of the recovery process.

(22)

Comment:

One peer reviewer commented that the presence of a currently listed endangered species, white bladderpod, confers some protection for other Weches glade plants at sites where it occurs.

Our Response:

There are two Texas golden gladecress sites where white bladderpod is also found: Chapel Hill and Caney Creek Glade Site 1. Additionally, both species were known to co-occur at historical Caney Creek

Glade Site 6, but they were eliminated by construction of a quarry. The entirety of the Chapel Hill site is privately owned, with all Texas golden gladecress plants growing strictly on private land. This situation is also true for most of the Texas golden gladecress plants at the Caney Creek Glade Site 1, although a limited number of individuals extend into the adjacent TXDOT-managed ROW. Although there are not formal legal protections for listed plants on private land, if a project takes place on that privately owned property that is carried out, permitted, or funded by a Federal agency, a Federal nexus is established for that project, and that Federal action agency is responsible for section 7 consultation with the Service to avoid jeopardizing the species or adversely modifying any designated critical habitat. For the plants in the ROW at Caney Creek Glade Site 1, TXDOT will provide protections for the species per State regulations or through consultation with the Service.

Comments From States

Section 4(i) of the Act states, “the Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.” Comments received from the State agencies and government officials regarding the proposal to list the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow are addressed below.

(23)

Comment:

These species have not been fully studied. There are significant concerns with the quality of data and analysis the Service used for its determination. The proposal is based largely on inconclusive reports and vast speculation about operations thought to affect habitats, existing regulatory mechanisms, conservation efforts, species populations and potential threats that fail to provide any sound scientific foundation on which to justify the listing of these species.

Our Response:

It is often the case that biological information may be lacking for rare species; however, the Act requires the Service to make determinations based on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made to protect such species. We are also required to make our listing determinations based on the five threat factors, singly or in combination, as set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.

We sought comments from independent peer reviewers to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. Peer reviewers were generally in agreement with the conclusions from our threats analysis that habitat modification and destruction due to human activities, as well as woody encroachment into Weches glades, likely adversely affects the Texas golden gladecress. The reviewers enhanced our understanding of some threats by providing personal observations of habitat conditions at some population sites of both species. A peer reviewer brought the ongoing installation of utility service improvements with potential to impact Texas golden gladecress in portions of its range to our attention. Peer reviewers also agreed that drought negatively affects the Neches River rose-mallow, and they provided new, detailed information on the types of invasive plants that most seem to constitute a threat to the species, as well as the extent of the invasion by these plants into Neches River rose-mallow population sites. In addition, they furnished information about the presence of feral hogs at specific Neches River rose-mallow population locations, as well as observations of sedimentation from a highway construction project into one Neches River rose-mallow site. One peer reviewer indicated his agreement that the Neches River rose-mallow lacks protective mechanisms other than U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits. One peer reviewer expressed his opinion that we needed more pertinent geological information on the outcrops across a larger geographic area than just Nacogdoches, San Augustine, and Sabine Counties. He also suggested chemical analysis of the outcrops known to support the Texas golden gladecress so as to better understand their unique qualities in order to use that information to seek out additional sites to survey for heretofore undiscovered populations or to carry out recovery actions.

We also solicited information from the general public, nongovernmental conservation organizations, State and Federal agencies that are familiar with the species and their habitats in east Texas, academic institutions, and groups and individuals that might have information that would contribute to an update of our knowledge of the Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow, as well as the activities and natural processes that might be contributing to the decline of either species. We used information garnered from this solicitation in addition to information in the files of the Service, TPWD, TXNDD's elements of occurrence records for both species, published journal articles, newspaper and magazine articles, status reports contracted by the Service and TPWD, reports from site visits, and telephone and electronic mail conversations with knowledgeable individuals. We also used satellite and aerial imagery to ascertain changes in land cover and land use at historical population sites and to determine whether changes in land cover and land use at historical populations sites and to determine whether the presence of primary constituent elements for each species were still in place. Additionally, we used the results of population monitoring from site visits to look at abundance, and if enough information was available, to get an idea of trends in the populations. In October 2011, we also made field trips to known sites where we were granted access, to verify land uses and contribute to the veracity of our threats analysis. In March 2012, we helped to organize and carry out a workshop and field tour of Texas golden gladecress sites for purposes of assisting landowners and agricultural agencies to become familiar with the species and its habitat. We also revisited accessible Texas golden gladecress sites at that time. In August 2012, we attended a Neches River rose-mallow workshop and field tour conducted by TPWD and revisited Neches River rose-mallow population sites. We used the best scientific and commercial information available in assessing population status, recognizing the limitations of some of the information.

(24)

Comment:

There is no conclusive indication that glauconite quarrying, oil and gas activities, invasive species, or pine tree plantings threaten Texas golden gladecress.

Our Response:

As stated in the proposed rule and this final rule, three historical populations of Texas golden gladecress were documented from sites where glauconite quarries are now located. The sole introduced Texas golden gladecress population, in Nacogdoches County, was extirpated by construction of a pipeline as recently as 2011. The Weches glades are documented to be overgrown with invasive, native and nonnative plants. The potential for negative effects from pine trees, planted in such close proximity to glades that shading and leaf litter accumulations adversely affect the glades, was pointed out to us by several respondents during the comment periods on the proposed rule, as well as one of our peer reviewers based on their personal observations (see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this final rule).

(25)

Comment:

There is no conclusive indication that the invasion by other species, development and construction projects, herbicide use, or herbivory pose a risk of loss or degradation to the Neches River rose-mallow.

Our Response:

A thorough analysis of the impacts of nonnative and native species encroachment, TXDOT roadway construction and maintenance projects, herbicide use, and herbivory were discussed in the proposed rule and in this final rule. All populations of the Neches River rose-mallow have been encroached upon by Chinese tallow. This invasive species is fast-growing and, once established in a habitat, is highly destructive, choking out native species. Development and construction projects will likely continue to be a threat to the species. Herbicides are a threat that could impact 7 of 11 (64 percent) Neches River rose-mallow populations. We do not consider herbivory to be a threat to the Neches River rose-mallow at this time. See the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this final rule for our complete evaluation.

(26)

Comment:

The best available information stated that the Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow are resilient species.

Our Response:

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data, we concluded that the Texas golden gladecress exhibits low to moderate resiliency. Although the species has persisted at several sites in the face of bulldozing, drought, and invasion by woody species, likely due to its persistent seed bank, and has also stayed in existence in small sites with small numbers of individuals, perhaps due to self-fertilization, it has shown no resiliency to impacts such as excavations (e.g., quarrying) and pipelines. For more information, see the Determination section of this rule. In the case for the Neches River rose-mallow, the best available scientific information indicates that, while reductions in the species' range have not occurred, there have been significant impacts from habitat modification and loss that have caused reductions in most, if not all, of the known Neches River rose-mallow populations. The Neches River rose-mallow is adapted to highly variable rates of water flow, including seasonal high and low flows, and occasional floods and droughts. However, as the habitat is so water-dependent, threats that could adversely modify its habitat, including invasion from nonnative and native woody vegetation, hydrological changes, herbicide, trampling, and drought, can have huge impacts. The Neches River rose-mallow likely requires high precipitation and flowing water or flood events to disperse seed (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8; Reeves 2008, p. 3), and although the Neches River rose-mallow is adapted to persisting during dry portions of the year, a complete lack of water can diminish seed production, range expansion, and genetic exchange.

(27)

Comment:

The Texas golden gladecress is already adequately protected by co-existing with the federally listed white bladderpod and collaborations between the Service and several partners.

Our Response:

White bladderpod is found at two of the remaining known Texs golden gladecress population sites (see our response to Comment 22). Both sites are privately owned with the exception of the Texas golden gladecress plants that extend onto the Sunrise Road ROW at Caney Creek Glade Site 1; therefore, absent a Federal nexus, no legal protections are afforded to either species under the Act. The Chapel Hill landowner does mow or bush-hog at least once per year to try to keep woody plants from overrunning this small tract, but this action is strictly voluntary on his part and not assured into the future.

(28)

Comment:

The mechanisms and plans provided by the Davy Crockett NF, the TXDOT, groundwater management areas and conservation districts, federally protected wetlands, and a number of private initiatives and agreements all serve to adequately protect the Neches River rose-mallow species.

Our Response:

We agree that the Neches River rose-mallow does benefit from some protections on USFS and TXDOT lands. As of the effective date of this rule (see

DATES

), the Neches River rose-mallow is a federally listed threatened species. Further, we are publishing a final rule on designation of critical habitat for the Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow under the Act elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

. Therefore, if a Federal nexus exists for a project, projects within the species' range or within designated critical habitat units must avoid jeopardizing the species or adversely modifying its designated critical habitat.

(29)

Comment:

Local elected officials were not notified of the proposed designation during the public comment period. It is crucial that the Service contacts potentially impacted private landowners, local elected officials and leaders, and industry in these counties.

Our Response:

We made substantial efforts to notify the public and interested parties, as described here. We announced the opening of the public comment period on the proposed rule in Nacogdoches, Houston, and Harrison Counties via newspaper public notices on September 19 and 20, 2012. Within 14 days post-publication of the proposed rule in the

Federal Register,

the Service mailed 164 letters to recipients that included both U.S. senators; the U.S. representative from east Texas; two State senators and three State representatives for the districts in question; and the county judges and all four commissioners from each of the following counties: Sabine, San Augustine, Nacogdoches, Houston, Cherokee, and Trinity. We also notified, via letter, State officials including the Texas Governor, State Comptroller, Texas General Land Office (TGLO) Commissioner, and Executive Directors of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT). Letters were also sent to staff of interested or affected agencies (TPWD, Texas Council of Environmental Quality, TXDOT, Texas Railroad Commission, Texas General Land Office, Texas Forestry Service, Texas Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, USACE), universities, conservation organizations and other nongovernmental organizations, and representatives of the following industries: Glauconite quarries, oil and gas exploration and production, timber production, and forestry services. In addition, we sent letters to some landowners, including private individuals, USFS, and TXDOT.

More specifically with regard to landowners, in September 2011, approximately 1 year prior to publication of the proposed rule, we sent letters to 107 entities, including representatives of many of the agencies or organizations listed above, informing the recipients of our need to gather and analyze the best available information for our use in developing a proposed rule to list and designate critical habitat for both species. We then added any landowner contacts that were given to us to our notification list. For some sites, landownership was clarified in file records or through communications with representatives of other organizations. Furthermore, for the Texas golden gladecress, we partnered with TPWD in March 2012, to host a Weches Glades workshop and field tour in San Augustine, to which we invited four private landowners (two with Texas golden gladecress and two with white bladderpod populations on their property). As preparation for the field

tour, permission to access sites was obtained from these four landowners. The purpose of the workshop and field tour was to acquaint landowners, and agency representatives that work with private landowners, with the glade and outcrop habitats, rare plants, and the listing process and implications, particularly as it applies to plants. In addition to these landowners, 24 other individuals were invited to the workshop, including two San Augustine County commissioners; the Mayor of San Augustine; the Chairman of the local Soil and Water Conservation District; and individuals from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Texas Forest Service, a private forestry services company, and a mining company. Of the 28 invitees, 17 attended the workshop and field tour.

As additional outreach to Neches River rose-mallow landowners, land managers, and agencies that work with them, TPWD organized a workshop and 2-day field trip in August 2012. The workshop also furnished an opportunity to explain the listing process and its applicability for plants. A pre-field trip workshop allowed information to be presented to 45 attendees that included the Texas Land Conservancy (owner of the Neches River rose-mallow Lovelady site) and TXDOT (owner of the ROW sites along SHs 204 and 94).

On April 16, 2013, the day of

Federal Register

publication of the document making available the draft economic analysis and reopening the comment period for the proposal to list the plants and designate critical habitat, we emailed letters to 157 people including representatives of agriculture, timber, oil and gas, and mining industries; local elected officials from the counties in question; agency staff that work with landowners; and those landowners for whom we had email addresses. Within 2 days of publication in the

Federal Register

, we also sent 208 letters by mail to State and local elected officials (including all county judges and commissioners); industry representatives; scholars; conservation organizations; State, Federal, and local agencies; and all individual landowners who had been identified through the past 2 years since our initial information solicitation in September 2011.

(30)

Comment:

Multiple State entities expressed concerns that these listings will hamper economic development. They indicated their belief that listing could impact agriculture and timber planting operations; oil and gas operations; and highway construction and maintenance projects in Nacogdoches, Sabine, and San Augustine Counties. They were concerned that projects with a Federal component could be delayed or cancelled in the listed counties. They also indicated concern that listing could impact ground water management, reservoir construction, road and bridge projects, and agriculture operations in Cherokee, Harrison, Houston, Nacogdoches, and Trinity Counties.

Our Response:

Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we must base a listing decision solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. The legislative history of this provision clearly states the intent of Congress to ensure that listing decisions are “. . . based solely on biological criteria and to prevent non-biological criteria from affecting such decisions . . . ”. Therefore, we did not consider the economic impacts of listing these species. See our response to Comment 12.

With respect to effects of listing on highway construction and maintenance, TXDOT has formally consulted with the Service only once for the white bladderpod in the 26 years that the plant has been listed. This formal consultation took place in 2009, for a highway safety improvement project on approximately 10 miles (16.1 km) of SH 21. The consultation resulted in slight modifications to TXDOT's original plan for a 4-ft (1.2-m) widening of the shoulder, instead widening it to 3 ft (0.9 m) for a short distance around a white bladderpod population. The Service and TXDOT agreed to creation of a “No Work Area” around the white bladderpod during construction phases to protect the plant from foot and vehicle traffic and to prevent any staging of equipment or materials. Provisions were made for TXDOT to continue maintenance (mowing) within the No Work Area post-project during the plant's dormant season (July 1 to August 31). The TXDOT also agreed to enhance habitat by hydroaxing invading woody vegetation at three white bladderpod sites on private land as compensation for loss of one or more plants that could not be avoided. These are the types of recommendations that are anticipated in the few situations where Texas golden gladecress occurs in State-maintained ROWs. The TXDOT has indicated that they do not have major highway construction projects planned anywhere near the critical habitat within the next 20 years, so we do not anticipate delays of highway construction projects.

(31)

Comment:

Although Neches River rose-mallow is considered extirpated in the SH 230 ROW, in 2012, Laura Baker, a graduate student at Stephen F. Austin State University, reported seeing Neches River rose-mallows within the ROW somewhere near the former site (Baker 2012, pers. comm., in Melinchuk 2012, p. 3). This observation needs to be verified.

Our Response:

We visited the site along SH 230 in Houston County in 2011, and did not find any Neches River rose-mallow plants. This site was considered extirpated due to herbicide overspray along the ROW. However, based on this comment, the population could still be present. Another commenter provided information regarding reintroduced populations near the cities of Douglass and Chireno, and at the Pineywoods Native Plant Center, all in Nacogdoches County. These populations need to be verified as Neches River rose-mallow and not a hybrid variety.

(32)

Comment:

The Neches River rose-mallow and the other two co-occurring

Hibiscus

species are wetland rather than aquatic plants. They do not grow in permanently standing water. They grow near permanent or ephemeral water bodies, and the sites are occasionally flooded. For most of their life cycle they grow on saturated soils that can become surficially dry. The proposed rule (77 FR 55973) states that the Neches River rose-mallow prefers deeper water; it would be more correct to say that the plants prefer areas near deeper water.

Our Response:

In our proposed rule at 77 FR 55973, we state, “Geographically, these three species [the halberdleaf, crimsoneyed, and Neches River rose-mallows] 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 [Neches River] rose-mallow, which is found in side channels and floodplains of major river drainages.”

Neches River rose-mallow is an endemic east Texas wetland species, occupying relatively open habitat. Soils are of the Inceptisol or Entisol orders (Diggs

et al.

2006, pp. 46, 79) and, although generally water-saturated, can often be surficially dry. Geographically, the Neches River rose-mallow and the two other co-occurring

Hibiscus

species can be found within similar habitats; however, the Neches River rose-mallow prefers areas near deeper water, whereas the halberdleaf and crimsoneyed rose-mallows are found along edges of major rivers and streams (Blanchard 1976, pp. 10-14; Poole 2011b, pers. comm.).

(33)

Comment:

The general habitat for the Neches River rose-mallow is more similar to seasonally flooded river floodplains (Diggs

et al.

2006, pp. 103-

104) rather than the short-leaf or loblolly pine-hardwood forest, longleaf pine, or loblolly pine forest (77 FR 55973).

Our Response:

As stated in the proposed rule, Gould (1975, p. 10) and Correll and Johnston (1979, p. 1030) described the generic vegetation community of the Neches River rose-mallow as the Pineywoods of east Texas. Diggs

et al.

(2006, pp. 2-3) also describes the generic geographic area as the Pineywoods; however, this was not mentioned in the proposed rule. More specifically, Neches River rose-mallow habitat within the Pineywoods is more accurately classified by Diggs

et al.

(2006, pp. 103-104) as “seasonally flooded river floodplains.” Natural bottomlands occupy the flat, broad portions of the floodplains of major rivers and are seasonally inundated with loamy to clayey seasonally flood and host flood-tolerant species of oak, sweetgum, elm, swamp tupelo, and red maple (Diggs

et al.

2006, p. 103). Stands of shortleaf, longleaf, and loblolly pine are not occupied by the Neches River rose-mallow.

(34)

Comment:

The proposed rule states that flowing water is required for seed dispersal downstream (77 FR 55974, 55988). However, research suggests this process has not entirely been investigated. Warnock (1995) notes that seed dispersal of Neches River rose-mallow is probably by water, Scott (1997, p. 5) stated that seed dispersal appears to be entirely water dependent, and Reeves (2008) discusses the dispersal of

Hibiscus moscheutos

(including

lasiocarpos

). The commenter states that although water-mediated seed dispersal of the Neches River rose-mallow is highly likely, it is not known that flowing water is required for seed dispersal downstream.

Our Response:

We agree that based on the best scientific and commercial data available, Neches River rose-mallow seeds are likely to be dispersed by flowing water. This change is reflected in the “Habitat” section for the Neches River rose-mallow of this final rule, yet this comment did not change our listing determination for the Neches River rose-mallow.

(35)

Comment:

Of the four introduced populations of Neches River rose-mallow, all but the experimental site (which has been manipulated) have experienced population declines (50 percent in Davy Crockett NF compartment 20, 90 percent in Davy Crockett NF compartment 16, and 95 percent in Davy Crockett NF compartment 11). Rapidly declining populations such as those in Davy Crockett NF compartments 16 and 11 do not appear viable.

Our Response:

The Act requires us to determine if the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow warrant listing based on our assessment of the five listing factors described in the Act using the best scientific and commercial data available at the time we conduct a review of the species. As part of our assessment, we evaluate whether a threat(s) is causing declines in numbers of individual plants in all populations or in specific population sites. However, a population's viability in and of itself, if not influenced by specific threats, is not a factor considered in our evaluation.

(36)

Comment:

One commenter noted that several of the population estimates throughout the proposed rule were not accurate or consistent. Information pertaining to sites 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 in Table 4 of the proposed rule needs to be changed. Site 2 states 78 plants were counted in 2003, but this should read stems. Site 3 states that 200-250 Neches River rose-mallow plants were introduced on compartment 20 of the Davy Crockett NF in 2000; however, the critical habitat section (Critical Habitat Unit 7) states that 350-400 plants were introduced in 2000. The actual number introduced is important in evaluating the success of the reintroduction. Site 8 states several hundred plants were counted in 2001, but this should read several hundred flowers. Site 7, the SH 204 ROW site, has had as many as 75 individuals, not a maximum number of seven plants.

Our Response:

The language in Table 4 pertaining to site 2 (compartment 16 of the Davy Crockett NF) has been updated. Site 2 (compartment 16) and Site 4 (compartment 20) were planted in 2000 (Nemec 2000, p. 3), totaling 700 plants in both units, with about 450 plants in Site 2 and about 200-250 plants in Site 4. Site 6 (SH 204) has been observed with about 75 plants in 1997, its maximum count to date, and this change is reflected in this final rule.

(37)

Comment:

One commenter noted the steep decline in the reintroduced site in compartment 16 of the Davy Crockett NF where the population has decreased by 90 percent (from 450 to 43 plants). Whether the loss of the beaver dam resulted in this drastic decrease needs further study.

Our Response:

See our response to Comment 19.

(38)

Comment:

In the proposed rule under the heading “Trampling by Feral Hogs and Cattle” (77 FR 55987), it states that because Neches River rose-mallow habitat is permanently or temporarily flooded, feral hogs have limited access to the plants. Neches River rose-mallows do not occur in permanently standing water, although they may grow adjacent to such sites. Their habitat is only flooded infrequently. For most of the year, it is surficially dry and easily disturbed by feral hogs. The commenter also noted feral hog damage of Neches River rose-mallow (breaking and flattening) at the introduction site in compartment 20 on the Davy Crockett NF (TXNDD 2012a).

Our Response:

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were used to verify habitat at each Neches River rose-mallow site. Compartment 20 was described on the NWI map as permanently or temporarily flooded habitat. The Service recognizes that Neches River rose-mallow prefers areas located near deeper water, generally with temporary not permanent standing water. The long-term impact on the Neches River rose-mallow from feral hog damage is unknown. Feral hog presence has been limited to five Neches River rose-mallow sites with minimal damage to habitat. The Service considers feral hogs a present threat and one that will likely continue into the near future. However, at this time, the severity of impacts to the species is low. This threat does not change the determination to list the species as threatened versus endangered. See also our response to Comment 18.

(39)

Comment:

The listing proposal states that no genetic studies have been conducted on the Neches River rose-mallow; however, there have been two such studies by Klips in 1995 and Mendoza in 2004. Neither study looked at genetic drift, inbreeding, or the possible threat from hybridization. It seems premature to conclude that small population size and hybridization are not potential threats.

Our Response:

The Service has reviewed Klips (1995, entire) and Mendoza (2004, entire) and incorporated this information into our analysis in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this final rule. While these studies pertain to genetic analysis, they do not look at genetic drift, inbreeding, or the possible threat from hybridization, as the commenter acknowledges. Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we do not consider hybridization or small population size a threat to the species at this time. See our response to Comment 11 for additional information regarding this comment.

(40)

Comment:

Listing of the two plants will have adverse impacts on the State transportation system other than in instances where they occur in or immediately adjacent to State-owned

ROW. Listing will hamper economic development and delay projects that require section 7 consultations.

Our Response:

See our response to Comment 30 above.

(41)

Comment:

There are existing mechanisms that adequately protect both species.

Our response:

See our response to Comments 22, 27, and 28.

Federal Agency Comments

(42)

Comment:

The Natural Resources Conservation Service indicated their willingness to assist landowners and land managers in identifying those elements that may have a negative or positive impact on the species.

Our Response:

We appreciate the Natural Resources Conservation Services' (NCRS') willingness to help landowners with actions to conserve these species. We foresee that NRCS' assistance to landowners and to the Service will be invaluable in delivering conservation programs like the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program that can help willing landowners plan and implement projects to restore habitat for both of these plant species.

Public Comments

(43)

Comment:

One commenter provided information regarding reintroduced populations near the cities of Douglass and Chireno, and at the Pineywoods Native Plant Center, all in Nacogdoches County. These populations have not been verified by the Service or a species expert. These populations need to be verified as Neches River rose-mallow and not a hybrid variety.

Our Response:

These populations have not been verified by the Service or species experts. Until such verification, the Service cannot use this information in our analysis.

(44)

Comment:

Several commenters expressed their beliefs that these species have not been fully studied. They indicated that there are significant concerns with the quality of data and analysis the Service used for its determination. They believe that the proposal is based largely on inconclusive reports and vast speculation about operations thought to affect habitats, existing regulatory mechanisms, conservation efforts, species populations, and potential threats that fail to provide any sound scientific foundation on which to justify the listing of these species. Other commenters assert that the Service does not have the scientific justification to list these species.

Our Response:

See our response to Comment 23.

(45)

Comment:

As outlined in the 2003 St. Augustine Glades Conservation Area Plan, TNC, along with other resource professionals, identified the conservation concerns and challenges for sustaining populations of the Texas golden gladecress.

Our Response:

We were aware of this document and considered this in our preparation of this determination.

(46)

Comment:

A commenter recommended that the benefits provided by conservation efforts currently in place in an area be fully considered.

Our Response:

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to take into account those efforts being made by a State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species. We consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws and regulations when developing our analysis. Regulatory mechanisms may preclude the need for listing if we determine such mechanisms adequately address the threats to the species such that listing is no longer warranted. However, existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect these species, and the ongoing conservation efforts are not sufficient to remove the threats to these species. Please see “Other Conservation Efforts” under “

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range”

for the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow in this final rule.

(47)

Comment:

Multiple commenters believe that interested parties should be given sufficient opportunity to review and comment on any proposal, including review of scientific data from an independent specialist's economic analysis of the current proposal, before the Service makes a final decision in this rulemaking. Similarly, any data provided to Service during future public hearings should also be made available to the public for review and comment.

Our Response:

This information was provided to the public for review and comment. Please see our response to comment 29 above for a full description.

(48)

Comment:

One commenter recommended that any proposal to list a species should include easily accessible and transparent information about cited literature. Another commenter noted that Executive Order 13463 directs agencies to provide timely online access to the rulemaking docket on

http://www.regulations.gov,

including relevant scientific and technical findings, in a format that can be easily searched and downloaded (E.O. 13463, sec. 2(b)). The proposed rule failed to provide a meaningful opportunity to understand and comment on the Service's proposal.

Our Response:

Executive Order 13463, signed by the President on April 18, 2008, amends Executive Orders 13389 (Creation of the Gulf Coast Recovery and Rebuilding Council) and 13390 (Establishment of a Coordinator of Federal Support for the Recovery and Rebuilding of the Gulf Coast Region). None of these three Executive Orders directs Federal agencies to provide timely online access to the rulemaking docket. We believe the commenter is referring to Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” and we believe that we have met the direction of that Executive Order. For our proposed rule to list the species and designate critical habitat, we provided the literature cited bibliography on

http://www.regulations.gov

when we published the proposed rule. The proposed rule also stated that additional tools and supporting information that we developed for that proposal were available at the Service's field office in Corpus Christi by appointment or that arrangements could be made to get that information by calling the field office. For this final determination, the literature cited bibliography and all tools and supporting information are available at:

•

http://www.regulations.gov

under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064,

•

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm,

•

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ClearLakeTexas,

and

• Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office in Corpus Christi (see

ADDRESSES

).

(49)

Comment:

The Service's failure to examine relevant evidence, explain its assumptions, consider contrary evidence in the studies on which it relies, identify uncertainties, share the studies it relied upon, and utilize basic scientific principles in its predictive analysis is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law. There is no basis in the record to support listing the plants under the Act.

Our Response:

As we are unable to identify from this comment the specific assumptions or contradictory evidence that the commenter is referring to, we cannot adequately provide a response to that part of this comment. We assessed the status of both species using the best scientific and commercial data available. We obtained this information by reviewing the candidate assessments that had been done for each species since they were first determined to be warranted for listing (in 1975 for the

Neches River rose-mallow, and in 1997 for the Texas golden gladecress), using all information in our files, soliciting new information prior to publication of the proposed rule, as well as during two comment periods, from a wide variety of knowledgeable entities and individuals, and using additional sources of information such as peer-reviewed journals and other publications. We incorporated all substantial information we received into this final rule, including any new information regarding the species' status, habitat conditions, and threats. We believe that we did identify and point out uncertainties and data gaps. We had to rely on the best scientific and commercial data available to us, as opposed to collecting new data to fill gaps. We believe that we have made a sound case for why the Texas golden gladecress warrants listing as endangered and the Neches River rose-mallow warrants listing as threatened under the Act. For further information, see our response to Comment 23.

(50)

Comment:

The threat to SH 204 ROW by “water management strategies” is speculative. There are no scientific data that demonstrate the level of hydrological change that would impact the Neches River rose-mallow; the Service is speculating this threat. Also, the proposed rule's discussion of the plant numbers for the Neches River rose-mallow and the impacts of the proposed Lake Columbia project on this species have not been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis or discussion. The Service does not report on information from two of its published reports; specifically plant count information was missing from 2007. Also, in these reports, plants were determined to be

Hibiscus

hybrids; however, this was not mentioned. There is no explanation of why the Service did not present this readily available data.

Our Response:

Some degree of hydrological change has been seen at most of the Neches River rose-mallow sites; however, information on some of the private land sites is lacking. Many wetland species, including the Neches River 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 Neches River rose-mallow likely requires high precipitation and flowing water or flood events to disperse seed (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8; Reeves 2008, p. 3), and although the Neches River rose-mallow is adapted to persisting in dry conditions during portions of the year, a complete lack of water can diminish seed production, range expansion, and genetic exchange. As Niches River rose-mallow habitat is so water-dependent, hydrological changes can have huge impacts.

In regards to the SH 204 ROW site, the best scientific and commercial data available suggest that the construction of the Lake Columbia reservoir project will divert water downstream, thereby likely dewatering the site. The agencies involved with the project are still working on solidifying the project details, and, therefore, we do not know how much water will remain at this site or if future water management practices or decisions will allow for seasonal flooding of water to this site. Please reference the “Hydrological Changes” section in this rule for more information on this project and hydrological impacts to this and other sites.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

There are not any substantial changes from the proposed rule. We did receive new information regarding the presence of feral hogs at Neches River rose-mallow sites. Based on this new information, we determined that feral hogs are a current and continuing threat to the Neches River rose-mallow, but the severity of the threat is low. We also received new information about ongoing service line improvements, including communication, domestic gas, water, sewer, and electric lines, that were occurring within the Texas golden gladecress's range, sometimes in highway ROWs. We determined that, because these improvements may involve excavations of habitat and plants, they could constitute additional threats to the Texas golden gladecress. These newly identified threats do not alter our listing determinations.

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 Texas golden gladecress's habitat, include construction of well pads, buildings, roads, and poultry production facilities, and service line improvements. A historic and ongoing major threat to Texas golden gladecress's habitat is the invasion by nonnative and native shrubs, trees, and vines, and other weedy species into the formerly open-sun, herbaceous, glade vegetation communities. Planting of pine plantations can potentially have negative impacts on the Texas golden gladecress if the spacing of planted trees puts them in close proximity to occupied outcrops, resulting in shading and pine leaf litter accumulations in the glade habitat. 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 Texas golden 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, USFS, 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 and as an animal feed additive (Godwin 2012, pers. comm., p. 4). 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.). The best scientific and commercial information available does not allow us to make predictions about future demand for glauconite, and we are unable to project the level of future quarry development throughout the Texas golden gladecress's range. Selection of quarry sites can be based on different site qualities and the variation in the mineral composition of the Weches Formation across its geographic range. 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.).

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 (Caney Creek Glade 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. The Service has been denied access to these sites; thus we cannot determine if any habitat or plants remain on the periphery of the excavated quarries. The last recorded survey of plants at Caney Creek Glade Site 2 was on March 18, 1988, when the Texas golden 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. Based on the total loss of habitat (surface and subsurface) due to the excavation, over a large portion of the former population site, we assume that the population was extirpated here.

The last information on plant numbers and conditions at the Caney Creek Glade Sites 6 and 8 was collected on March 19 and April 24, 1987. At that time, Caney Creek Glade Site 6 was recognized as the largest known viable population of Texas golden gladecress. At this site, the Texas golden gladecress grew in a former pasture with thousands of fruiting plants in association with other native glade plants, including white bladderpod, in shallow bedrock pockets. The Caney Creek Glade 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 because 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 to develop a quarry, typically there is no Federal nexus, 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 Texas golden 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 Texas golden 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 (32-km) 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 Texas golden 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 Texas golden 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 mi

2

(23,310 km

2

). 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 (Hall 2009, pp. 3-7; 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 is 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 (Murphy 2011b, pp. 2-3).

The Texas Railroad Commission's 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 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 Caney Creek Glade 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 Texas Railroad Commission regulates the oil and natural gas industry in the State of Texas. The Texas Railroad Commission 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 Texas Railroad Commission 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 Texas golden 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 2011, 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 Texas golden 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 coastal bermudagrass in this region (Rodewald 2011, pers. comm.). The Simpson Farms Texas golden gladecress 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 Texas golden 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 Texas golden 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 Texas golden 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 directly 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 Texas golden 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. However, service improvements for existing homes and businesses, including installation of service lines for communications, electric power, water, sewer, and domestic gas are ongoing and do have the potential to occur in Texas golden gladecress habitat (Walker 2012, pers. comm., p. 1). Because water, sewer, and gas lines entail excavations to lay pipe, these activities could have similar consequences to installing natural gas and oil pipelines if the lines pass through an occupied outcrop. Electric power structures in this area are

generally above-ground poles and lines that may be installed, or maintained, in highway ROWs. Although Texas golden gladecress habitat and plants may potentially be impacted by pole placement, the small project footprint, limited to the pole installation, may mean that the small Texas golden gladecress sites could be avoided by moving pole locations a few feet to either side of an outcrop. In those cases where new power lines are built outside of established ROWs, Texas golden gladecress populations might be damaged during clearing of habitat by vehicles and heavy equipment traversing a glade. However, there is also potential that clearing of woody vegetation out of invaded glades may reopen them to the point that the Texas golden gladecress could show a positive response.

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 Texas golden gladecress habitat in the same manner as would residential or other types of commercial construction. Aerial photography from November 2011 (Google Earth, 2011) shows 21 poultry farms within the Texas golden gladecress's 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 Texas golden 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, on the tops of ridges, or in low-lying areas (Ritter 2012, pers. comm.), such as those occupied by the Texas golden gladecress. This site-selection preference means that poultry producers would most likely avoid Texas golden 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 Texas golden gladecress habitat.

Roads

Two of the three extant Texas golden gladecress populations, Geneva and Caney Creek Glade Site 1, extend into ROWs managed by TXDOT. The third confirmed population at Chapel Hill is located on a small tract adjacent to a county road and is not considered to be in a road ROW. In the 1990s, a road project impacted the portion of the Caney Creek Glade Site 1 population that occurred in the SH ROW when Sunrise Road was widened and straightened (Singhurst 2012g, pers. comm.); however, not all plants were destroyed. Review of a 2011 list of TXDOT-planned projects did not show any future road improvements or expansions near known Texas golden gladecress population sites. Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, we conclude that new road construction or improvements to the existing roads does not pose a threat to the two Texas golden gladecress populations that occur within ROWs, or to the third population that does not.

Invasive Species

A major stressor to the habitat of Texas golden gladecress is the ongoing invasion of nonnative and native shrubs, trees, and vines 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. The historic Caney Creek Glade 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

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.